Democracy Now! - Laoshttp://www.democracynow.org/topics/laos
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specificationmail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!)http://www.democracynow.org/images/dn-logo-for-podcast.png?201502271457http://www.democracynow.org/topics/laos
144144Democracy Now! - Laosen-USDemocracy Now! - LaosCodePink Attempts to "Arrest" Henry Kissinger for War Crimes in Vietnam, Laos, Chile and East Timorhttp://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/30/codepink_attempts_to_arrest_henry_kissinger
tag:democracynow.org,2015-01-30:en/story/bdc001 AMY GOODMAN : Activists from the antiwar group CodePink attempted to perform a citizen&#8217;s arrest of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger when he arrived Thursday to testify on global security challenges at a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting. Kissinger served as secretary of state and national security adviser during the Vietnam War under presidents Nixon and Ford.
CODEPINK PROTESTERS : Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes! Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes!
SEN . JOHN McCAIN: The committee will stand in recess until the Capitol police will restore order.
CODEPINK PROTESTERS : Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes! Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes!
MEDEA BENJAMIN : In the name of the people of Chile, in the name of the people of Vietnam, in the name of the people of East Timor, in the name of people of Cambodia, in the name of the people of Laos.
AMY GOODMAN : Senator John McCain lashed out at the protesters and called on the Capitol Hill Police to remove them.
SEN . JOHN McCAIN: I&#8217;ve been a member of this committee for many years, and I have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place about—you know, you&#8217;re going to have to shut up, or I&#8217;m going to have you arrested. … Get out of here, you low-life scum.
AMY GOODMAN : Thirty minutes later, two more members of CodePink interrupted Henry Kissinger&#8217;s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
HENRY KISSINGER : Yet if we look around the world, we encounter upheaval and conflict and chaos.
ALLI McCRACKEN: CodePink calls for the arrest of Henry Kissinger for war crimes. Vietnam: From 1969 to 1973, Kissinger, working for Richard Nixon, oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, which led to the deaths of millions—millions of people. Many thousands more died from the effects of massive doses of Agent Orange or from unexploded bombs that cover the countryside.
ANNA KAMINSKI : Chile: Henry Kissinger was one of the principal architects of the coup in Chile on September 11th, 1973, a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.
UNIDENTIFIED : Mr. Chairman, I salute Henry Kissinger for his many—
SEN . JOHN McCAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.
ANNA KAMINSKI : Sixteen years of repression, torture and death followed ...
AMY GOODMAN : The CodePink protesters were taken out of the Senate hearing room, and Henry Kissinger continued with his testimony. AMYGOODMAN: Activists from the antiwar group CodePink attempted to perform a citizen’s arrest of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger when he arrived Thursday to testify on global security challenges at a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting. Kissinger served as secretary of state and national security adviser during the Vietnam War under presidents Nixon and Ford.

CODEPINKPROTESTERS: Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes! Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes!

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: The committee will stand in recess until the Capitol police will restore order.

CODEPINKPROTESTERS: Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes! Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes!

MEDEABENJAMIN: In the name of the people of Chile, in the name of the people of Vietnam, in the name of the people of East Timor, in the name of people of Cambodia, in the name of the people of Laos.

AMYGOODMAN: Senator John McCain lashed out at the protesters and called on the Capitol Hill Police to remove them.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I’ve been a member of this committee for many years, and I have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place about—you know, you’re going to have to shut up, or I’m going to have you arrested. … Get out of here, you low-life scum.

AMYGOODMAN: Thirty minutes later, two more members of CodePink interrupted Henry Kissinger’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

HENRYKISSINGER: Yet if we look around the world, we encounter upheaval and conflict and chaos.

ALLI McCRACKEN: CodePink calls for the arrest of Henry Kissinger for war crimes. Vietnam: From 1969 to 1973, Kissinger, working for Richard Nixon, oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, which led to the deaths of millions—millions of people. Many thousands more died from the effects of massive doses of Agent Orange or from unexploded bombs that cover the countryside.

ANNAKAMINSKI: Chile: Henry Kissinger was one of the principal architects of the coup in Chile on September 11th, 1973, a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.

UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. Chairman, I salute Henry Kissinger for his many—

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.

ANNAKAMINSKI: Sixteen years of repression, torture and death followed ...

AMYGOODMAN: The CodePink protesters were taken out of the Senate hearing room, and Henry Kissinger continued with his testimony.

]]>
Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -050050 Years After U.S. Launched Secret War on Laos, Unexploded Bombs Still Killing Civilianshttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/25/50_years_after_us_launched_secret
tag:democracynow.org,2014-06-25:en/story/ee8625 NERMEEN SHAIKH : Fifty years ago this month, the U.S. began raining down bombs on Laos in what would become the largest bombing campaign in history. From June 1964 to March 1973, the U.S dropped at least two million tons of bombs on the small, landlocked Southeast Asian country. That&#8217;s the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—more than were dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.
The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they were dropped from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies,&quot; or bomblets—baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs. Well, since the bombing stopped four decades ago, tens of thousands of people have been injured or killed as a result.
Last year, Democracy Now! spoke to Thoummy Silamphan , a bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate. He explained how a bomb exploded when he was an eight-year-old child collecting bamboo shoots.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : One day, I needed to find some bamboo shoots for to feed my family, to make soup. So—and when I saw the bamboo shoots, and I tried to dig into bamboo shoots. After that, the bombie explode to me.
AMY GOODMAN : What you call a &quot;bombie,&quot; like a bomblet, exploded?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes, because at that time in my village or in those areas, we have a lot of the bombing, and we don&#8217;t know the bomb under ground. And when we&#8217;re digging for bamboo shoots, and then the UXO explode to me, yeah. And it get—I lost my left hand. And that time, it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to continue my life.
AMY GOODMAN : For more on Laos, we go now to New Mexico public television in Albuquerque to speak with Karen Coates and Jerry Redfern, the co-authors of a remarkable new book called Eternal Harvest: The Legacy of American Bombs in Laos . They spent more than seven years in Laos working on the book.
Karen and Jerry, welcome to Democracy Now! Karen, let&#8217;s begin with you. Why did you write this book? And talk about the significance of this month, the 50th anniversary of the largest, most significant—well, the largest bombing in history.
KAREN COATES : Well, we were in the country in 2005 to work on an article for Archaeology Magazine , and at that point we had been living in the region for several years. We had visited Laos before. We knew the history, as Americans. But we had no idea the extent of the problem until we were there that trip. And in about two weeks during that time, we had heard of more than 20 accidents around the region where we were. And we sort of looked at each other and said, this is much bigger, a much bigger problem than we realized.
And one day we went to a local hospital and encountered a 10-year-old boy who had been in his farm field digging when he hit something, most likely a bombie, which blew up in his face. And we saw him. We interviewed his mother, and she said, &quot;We know the problem, but what can my family do? Because we have to farm. We have to dig. We have to go to the field. And we know it&#8217;s dangerous, but we&#8217;re risking our lives every time we do.&quot; And so, that&#8217;s when Jerry and I said to each other, &quot;We need to do something much bigger than an article. We need—we need to investigate this.&quot;
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And how did you—Jerry, perhaps you could answer this—how did you go about conducting your research? How many people, survivors, did you speak with for your book?
JERRY REDFERN : The reporting that we did was essentially grassroots reporting. We did it by traveling throughout the country from north to south and east to west, just going from village to village and asking people, &quot;Do you have a bomb problem? Have you had problems with bomb accidents?&quot; I can&#8217;t begin to guess how many people we talked to. Hundreds upon hundreds, from way up near the Chinese border in the north to down close to the Cambodian border in the south, all along the Vietnamese border on the east, and along the Thai border in the west, as well.
Sort of the way that we began or followed up on the reporting is, the United States actually kept track of most of the bombing raids that were conducted. And in around 2000, the Clinton administration gave this bombing data to the Lao government, the Cambodian government and Vietnamese government, since we bombed those countries, as well, to help them clear up this UXO after the fact. And the Lao government, with help from other aid groups, put together a series of maps showing the places in the country that had been most heavily bombed. And we essentially took those bombing maps and went to the areas of highest concentration and just asked people what sort of problems they had.
AMY GOODMAN : Karen Coates, go back 50 years ago. I mean, there are many people who are watching or listening to this broadcast right now who have no idea what happened. Why did this bombing campaign begin? Tell us the history of the U.S. bombing of Laos.
KAREN COATES : It&#8217;s a complicated question, but, really, it was a two-pronged air war. One of the primary goals was to basically wipe out the transmission of people and supplies through the Ho Chi Minh Trail between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, which went through Laos. And then, the other part was to aid our allies in the north against a communist insurgency. But it was much larger than that. In the end, every province was hit, to some extent.
AMY GOODMAN : This is during the presidency of President—and what was the rationale of President Nixon? And talk about the secrecy around it all.
JERRY REDFERN : Well, it actually began with LBJ in 1964, before Nixon came into office. And from reading the Air Force history of the overall campaign, it looks like LBJ actually began it thinking it would just be a couple of small bombing operations in the north of the country, maybe a little bit in the east. But by the end of 1964, what we kind of think about as the bombing that happened in the Vietnam War, the sort of huge, large-scale carpet bombing, that began by December. Nixon vastly increased the amount of bombing that went on in Laos, but it really did begin under LBJ .
AMY GOODMAN : Let&#8217;s turn to the video you produced to accompany your book. This is Jim Harris, the founder of We Help War Victims. He spoke about the bombing campaign against Laos.
JIM HARRIS : The bombing campaign was to interdict the southbound traffic of North Vietnamese soldiers heading into South Vietnam. And that traffic went down what we called the Ho Chi Minh Trail. We also bombed in support of the Hmong troops who were our allies in the war up in Xiangkhouang province. But a map of Lao indicating the full range of the bombing is really staggering for how—how much of the country was hit.
AMY GOODMAN : Karen Coates, take it from there.
KAREN COATES : Well, when you see that map, it&#8217;s almost unbelievable—it still is for me when I look at it today—because you can see how the entire country, almost, was covered, layer upon layer upon layer of bombs. And those bombs still come up from the ground today.
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And so, Jerry, can you talk about what the effects are on people today? Your story tells—your book tells the story of a woman named Ta. You tell a number of stories; one of them is of a woman named Ta and her dead son Bunyon. Can you talk about that story and how representative it is of the hundreds of people you spoke to who are still suffering the effect of this bombing campaign?
JERRY REDFERN : That was a particularly astonishingly sad story. It&#8217;s a very—excuse me—that happened in a particularly poor part of the country, again, close to the Vietnamese border, at an entry point for the Ho Chi Minh Trail coming into Laos. So it was extremely heavily bombed. And the people there are very poor farmers. And essentially, the second crop during the year that they have is to go out and collect bomb scrap, either intact bombs or shrapnel from exploded bombs. And then they trade this for money, essentially, and that scrap metal goes into various other products, you know, for like rebar or spoons or things like that. But her son, as far as we could tell from people who survived, he and a couple other people had found some sort of bomb they didn&#8217;t recognize and were digging it up, when it exploded and essentially wiped him and at least two other people out completely. And everybody in this village knew the dangers of this sort of thing. People from this village had been killed regularly for years, but they still went out to try to collect it because they were so heavily impoverished. It was just—it was really a terrible story.
AMY GOODMAN : I want—
JERRY REDFERN : But unfortunately not the only story like that.
AMY GOODMAN : I want to go back to Thoummy Silamphan, the bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate in Laos, who was in our studios. He spoke about the legacy of the U.S. bombing campaign against his country.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : As the war is ended and stopped many years ago, but now the UXO continue to kill and injure people, until now. And that is why we want to involve for the Legacies of War. I think Legacies of War is very, very important for the Lao people, especially for the UXO clearance and for victim assistance in Laos, because now we have more than hundred town the UXO explode in Laos. And now we also have many survivors that are just waiting for support and help.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s Thoummy Silamphan, the bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate in Laos. Karen, can you explain UXO , the unexploded ordnance, that remain littering the country, and particularly what people in Laos feel is the responsibility of the United States today, 50 years later? And, Jerry, weigh in, as well.
KAREN COATES : So, the unexploded ordnance remaining—and that&#8217;s a term that covers all types of munitions that are left over, but the most common variety are the cluster bombs, or little bombies that you referred to earlier, which—they were packed into canisters that opened in midair and scattered all across the land. And those are particularly dangerous because they&#8217;re small. They&#8217;re about the size of a baseball. They can look like rocks to farmers. They can look like toys to kids. And if a person encounters one, it&#8217;s nearly impossible to tell whether that thing is going to blow or not. And often, it will blow up if a person moves it or throws it or something like that.
JERRY REDFERN : They&#8217;re also a particularly pernicious weapon, because they&#8217;re not designed to injure or just—you know, like a landmine, when used by the military, is meant to take one person out, and then maybe two other people have to take that person out of battle. These are—these tiny, little baseball-sized explosives are meant to kill anything within about 30 yards or so. And then you have hundreds of them in an area. It&#8217;s actually kind of remarkable to find people who survive accidents with these things, because they are intended to murder people.
KAREN COATES : But they aren&#8217;t the only bombs that are remaining.
AMY GOODMAN : And the U.S. responsibility—
KAREN COATES : For example—
AMY GOODMAN : —today? We just have 30 seconds.
JERRY REDFERN : That&#8217;s a good question. What we&#8217;ve been thinking is that the United States needs to come up with plans for what to do after we go into war. United States likes to plan wars a bit, but the after-effects, the aftermath, planning what to do with all the stuff that&#8217;s left behind, seems to be not considered much.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, Jerry Redfern and Karen Coates, we want to thank you for being with us, co-authors of Eternal Harvest: The Legacy of American Bombs in Laos . And thanks so much to New Mexico PBS .
That does it for our show. We have two job openings. Democracy Now! is hiring an administrative director and a Linux systems administrator , as well as fall internships . Visit democracynow.org/jobs for more information. NERMEENSHAIKH: Fifty years ago this month, the U.S. began raining down bombs on Laos in what would become the largest bombing campaign in history. From June 1964 to March 1973, the U.S dropped at least two million tons of bombs on the small, landlocked Southeast Asian country. That’s the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—more than were dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.

The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they were dropped from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million "bombies," or bomblets—baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs. Well, since the bombing stopped four decades ago, tens of thousands of people have been injured or killed as a result.

Last year, Democracy Now! spoke to Thoummy Silamphan, a bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate. He explained how a bomb exploded when he was an eight-year-old child collecting bamboo shoots.

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: One day, I needed to find some bamboo shoots for to feed my family, to make soup. So—and when I saw the bamboo shoots, and I tried to dig into bamboo shoots. After that, the bombie explode to me.

AMYGOODMAN: What you call a "bombie," like a bomblet, exploded?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: Yes, because at that time in my village or in those areas, we have a lot of the bombing, and we don’t know the bomb under ground. And when we’re digging for bamboo shoots, and then the UXO explode to me, yeah. And it get—I lost my left hand. And that time, it’s very, very difficult for me to continue my life.

AMYGOODMAN: For more on Laos, we go now to New Mexico public television in Albuquerque to speak with Karen Coates and Jerry Redfern, the co-authors of a remarkable new book called Eternal Harvest: The Legacy of American Bombs in Laos. They spent more than seven years in Laos working on the book.

Karen and Jerry, welcome to Democracy Now! Karen, let’s begin with you. Why did you write this book? And talk about the significance of this month, the 50th anniversary of the largest, most significant—well, the largest bombing in history.

KARENCOATES: Well, we were in the country in 2005 to work on an article for Archaeology Magazine, and at that point we had been living in the region for several years. We had visited Laos before. We knew the history, as Americans. But we had no idea the extent of the problem until we were there that trip. And in about two weeks during that time, we had heard of more than 20 accidents around the region where we were. And we sort of looked at each other and said, this is much bigger, a much bigger problem than we realized.

And one day we went to a local hospital and encountered a 10-year-old boy who had been in his farm field digging when he hit something, most likely a bombie, which blew up in his face. And we saw him. We interviewed his mother, and she said, "We know the problem, but what can my family do? Because we have to farm. We have to dig. We have to go to the field. And we know it’s dangerous, but we’re risking our lives every time we do." And so, that’s when Jerry and I said to each other, "We need to do something much bigger than an article. We need—we need to investigate this."

NERMEENSHAIKH: And how did you—Jerry, perhaps you could answer this—how did you go about conducting your research? How many people, survivors, did you speak with for your book?

JERRYREDFERN: The reporting that we did was essentially grassroots reporting. We did it by traveling throughout the country from north to south and east to west, just going from village to village and asking people, "Do you have a bomb problem? Have you had problems with bomb accidents?" I can’t begin to guess how many people we talked to. Hundreds upon hundreds, from way up near the Chinese border in the north to down close to the Cambodian border in the south, all along the Vietnamese border on the east, and along the Thai border in the west, as well.

Sort of the way that we began or followed up on the reporting is, the United States actually kept track of most of the bombing raids that were conducted. And in around 2000, the Clinton administration gave this bombing data to the Lao government, the Cambodian government and Vietnamese government, since we bombed those countries, as well, to help them clear up this UXO after the fact. And the Lao government, with help from other aid groups, put together a series of maps showing the places in the country that had been most heavily bombed. And we essentially took those bombing maps and went to the areas of highest concentration and just asked people what sort of problems they had.

AMYGOODMAN: Karen Coates, go back 50 years ago. I mean, there are many people who are watching or listening to this broadcast right now who have no idea what happened. Why did this bombing campaign begin? Tell us the history of the U.S. bombing of Laos.

KARENCOATES: It’s a complicated question, but, really, it was a two-pronged air war. One of the primary goals was to basically wipe out the transmission of people and supplies through the Ho Chi Minh Trail between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, which went through Laos. And then, the other part was to aid our allies in the north against a communist insurgency. But it was much larger than that. In the end, every province was hit, to some extent.

AMYGOODMAN: This is during the presidency of President—and what was the rationale of President Nixon? And talk about the secrecy around it all.

JERRYREDFERN: Well, it actually began with LBJ in 1964, before Nixon came into office. And from reading the Air Force history of the overall campaign, it looks like LBJ actually began it thinking it would just be a couple of small bombing operations in the north of the country, maybe a little bit in the east. But by the end of 1964, what we kind of think about as the bombing that happened in the Vietnam War, the sort of huge, large-scale carpet bombing, that began by December. Nixon vastly increased the amount of bombing that went on in Laos, but it really did begin under LBJ.

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s turn to the video you produced to accompany your book. This is Jim Harris, the founder of We Help War Victims. He spoke about the bombing campaign against Laos.

JIMHARRIS: The bombing campaign was to interdict the southbound traffic of North Vietnamese soldiers heading into South Vietnam. And that traffic went down what we called the Ho Chi Minh Trail. We also bombed in support of the Hmong troops who were our allies in the war up in Xiangkhouang province. But a map of Lao indicating the full range of the bombing is really staggering for how—how much of the country was hit.

AMYGOODMAN: Karen Coates, take it from there.

KARENCOATES: Well, when you see that map, it’s almost unbelievable—it still is for me when I look at it today—because you can see how the entire country, almost, was covered, layer upon layer upon layer of bombs. And those bombs still come up from the ground today.

NERMEENSHAIKH: And so, Jerry, can you talk about what the effects are on people today? Your story tells—your book tells the story of a woman named Ta. You tell a number of stories; one of them is of a woman named Ta and her dead son Bunyon. Can you talk about that story and how representative it is of the hundreds of people you spoke to who are still suffering the effect of this bombing campaign?

JERRYREDFERN: That was a particularly astonishingly sad story. It’s a very—excuse me—that happened in a particularly poor part of the country, again, close to the Vietnamese border, at an entry point for the Ho Chi Minh Trail coming into Laos. So it was extremely heavily bombed. And the people there are very poor farmers. And essentially, the second crop during the year that they have is to go out and collect bomb scrap, either intact bombs or shrapnel from exploded bombs. And then they trade this for money, essentially, and that scrap metal goes into various other products, you know, for like rebar or spoons or things like that. But her son, as far as we could tell from people who survived, he and a couple other people had found some sort of bomb they didn’t recognize and were digging it up, when it exploded and essentially wiped him and at least two other people out completely. And everybody in this village knew the dangers of this sort of thing. People from this village had been killed regularly for years, but they still went out to try to collect it because they were so heavily impoverished. It was just—it was really a terrible story.

AMYGOODMAN: I want—

JERRYREDFERN: But unfortunately not the only story like that.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to go back to Thoummy Silamphan, the bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate in Laos, who was in our studios. He spoke about the legacy of the U.S. bombing campaign against his country.

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: As the war is ended and stopped many years ago, but now the UXO continue to kill and injure people, until now. And that is why we want to involve for the Legacies of War. I think Legacies of War is very, very important for the Lao people, especially for the UXO clearance and for victim assistance in Laos, because now we have more than hundred town the UXO explode in Laos. And now we also have many survivors that are just waiting for support and help.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s Thoummy Silamphan, the bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate in Laos. Karen, can you explain UXO, the unexploded ordnance, that remain littering the country, and particularly what people in Laos feel is the responsibility of the United States today, 50 years later? And, Jerry, weigh in, as well.

KARENCOATES: So, the unexploded ordnance remaining—and that’s a term that covers all types of munitions that are left over, but the most common variety are the cluster bombs, or little bombies that you referred to earlier, which—they were packed into canisters that opened in midair and scattered all across the land. And those are particularly dangerous because they’re small. They’re about the size of a baseball. They can look like rocks to farmers. They can look like toys to kids. And if a person encounters one, it’s nearly impossible to tell whether that thing is going to blow or not. And often, it will blow up if a person moves it or throws it or something like that.

JERRYREDFERN: They’re also a particularly pernicious weapon, because they’re not designed to injure or just—you know, like a landmine, when used by the military, is meant to take one person out, and then maybe two other people have to take that person out of battle. These are—these tiny, little baseball-sized explosives are meant to kill anything within about 30 yards or so. And then you have hundreds of them in an area. It’s actually kind of remarkable to find people who survive accidents with these things, because they are intended to murder people.

KARENCOATES: But they aren’t the only bombs that are remaining.

AMYGOODMAN: And the U.S. responsibility—

KARENCOATES: For example—

AMYGOODMAN: —today? We just have 30 seconds.

JERRYREDFERN: That’s a good question. What we’ve been thinking is that the United States needs to come up with plans for what to do after we go into war. United States likes to plan wars a bit, but the after-effects, the aftermath, planning what to do with all the stuff that’s left behind, seems to be not considered much.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, Jerry Redfern and Karen Coates, we want to thank you for being with us, co-authors of Eternal Harvest: The Legacy of American Bombs in Laos. And thanks so much to New Mexico PBS.

]]>
Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 -0400Video: Jeremy Scahill & Noam Chomsky on Secret U.S. Dirty Wars From Yemen to Pakistan to Laoshttp://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/23/video_jeremy_scahill_noam_chomsky_on_secret_us_dirty_wars_from_laos_to_yemen_to_pakistan
tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-23:blog/73ff7b Update: See Jeremy Scahill speak this Friday in New York City at 7pm in the Tishman Auditorium at The New School. Click here for full event details.
Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill and author Noam Chomsky recently sat down together at Harvard University to discuss Scahill’s groundbreaking new book, &quot;Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield.&quot; Amy Goodman hosted the discussion, which was sponsored by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and the ACLU of Massachusetts.
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN : What an honor it is to be here with Jeremy Scahill and Noam Chomsky. And I wanted to start with Noam responding Jeremy&#8217;s investigations and the description, putting it in the context of the history of U.S. foreign policy.
NOAM CHOMSKY : I had received an email this morning from a person who I&#8217;m sure many of you know about. It&#8217;s Fred Branfman. He&#8217;s a counterpart of Jeremy from back in the &#39;60s. He&#39;s the person who worked for years, with enormous courage and effort, to try to expose what were called the &quot;secret wars.&quot; The secret wars were perfectly public wars which the media were keeping secret, government. And Fred—this was in Laos—was—he finally did succeed in breaking through, and a tremendous exposure of huge wars that were going on—a war in northern Laos attacking a peasant society that was so remote from what was happening in the Indochina wars that many of them probably didn&#8217;t even know they were in Laos. Actually, with Fred, I met many of them in refugee camps after a CIA mercenary army drove them out from areas where they had been hiding in caves for two years under intense bombardment. He then proceeded to help expose the even worse wars in Cambodia and then the air wars, in general. Anyway, background.
One thing he pointed—what he pointed—he&#8217;s a great admirer of Jeremy&#8217;s, I should say, for very good reasons, which you&#8217;ve just heard and, I hope, will read and see. But Fred made an interesting point. He reminded me of a comment by a high American official back in 1968, who Fred was trying to get to speak. It&#8217;s not easy to get these people to speak, but he did. And this official—he was asking him, &quot;Why is this intensive bombing going on of northern Laos?&quot; Nothing to do with the war in Indochina, just destruction of a poor peasant society, one of the most malevolent acts of modern history, I think. And he finally—the official finally explained. He said, &quot;Look, there&#8217;s a temporary bombing of North—a cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam, and we have all these planes, and we don&#8217;t have anything to do with them. So we&#8217;ll bomb Laos.&quot;
OK, I think that&#8217;s the lesson of history that we should bare in mind in reading Jeremy&#8217;s exposures of, first, Blackwater and the mercenary army, and now JSOC , the so-called secret army—secret the same way the secret wars were secret. If you have a reporter who&#8217;s willing to—that has the courage and integrity to expose it, you can expose it. These resources are there. They&#8217;re growing. They have a self-generating capacity. They&#8217;re going to get larger and larger. They&#8217;re going to want more and more to do. And if one target disappears, they&#8217;ll be turned somewhere else. And as Jeremy hinted, they&#8217;ll be turned here.
And there&#8217;s a history of that, too. If some of you want to read about it, there&#8217;s a very important book by a historian, very good historian, Al McCoy, who, among other things, studied the history of drugs and torture and so on. But he&#8217;s a Philippine historian mainly, and he did a study of the Philippine War, the U.S. counterinsurgency war in the Philippines in the—over a century ago. It was a brutal, murderous war, hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, a horror story. And he pointed out that, at the time, after the war was over, when the so-called pacification began, the U.S. forces were—the Marines, mostly, in those days—were using the highest technology available to develop a surveillance system over the Philippine society, so they could do what—what, by our standards now, at a primitive level, the kinds of things that Jeremy described. And they did. And it&#8217;s turned the Philippines into a—this is the Philippines a hundred years later, have never escaped from this. Philippine society is permeated by the consequences of this long terror war.
But McCoy pointed out something else. He pointed out that these measures, from before the First World War, were very quickly picked up domestically, both by the British and the United States, and applied to surveillance and control techniques within their own societies—the FBI here and so on. And now that&#8217;s what we can expect, and signs of it are already around. The resources are there. They&#8217;re self-generating. They&#8217;re kept under a veil, so not too much inspection of them, though there could be, as you&#8217;ve seen. They&#8217;re going to grow. They&#8217;re going to develop. If the current targets disappear, they&#8217;ll move on to new targets, because that&#8217;s the nature of these systems, just like the planes who had nowhere to bomb so they decided to send them to bomb northern Laos. And they&#8217;ll come home. Already happening. And we can expect more and more of it. I think that&#8217;s the historical background that should very much be kept in mind.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL : [inaudible] Sorry. You know, there was a—there was a time when Amy and I, I think we were in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we were—I&#8217;m from Milwaukee, but we were doing Democracy Now! , the show, from there, and Amy had been on a speaking tour going all around the country and had given probably, you know, 200 speeches in like 199 days or something. I mean, it was this incredible tour that she was on. And in the middle of a show, she lost her voice in—I mean, had some coughing and then lost her voice. And it was this moment on the air no one knew what to do, because this—the voice we all listen to all the time all of a sudden like went sort of dead on the air. And I think there was a congresswoman or someone on the show, who was left to kind of deal with it. And Amy&#8217;s like going like this, like—and she&#8217;s not—she&#8217;s just meaning, like, &quot;Let&#8217;s go to break.&quot; But anyway, so, I think it&#8217;s a product of as much great speaking as you do.
One thing, though, in response to this, you know, I think that one thing that&#8217;s important to keep in mind is that very little of what this administration or the Bush administration did was actually new ideas. They were old, existing ideas and resurrections of certain plans and programs. I mean, if you look at the Phoenix program in Vietnam, which was this assassination program that was being run in Vietnam, there are very serious parallels to what the United States was doing in Iraq.
You know, the dominant historical narrative is that the surge won the Iraq War. And General Petraeus, had he not gone down for—you know, the only thing that seems to be capable of taking down the powerful is these sort of—you know, what they do in their top-secret chambers. They can wage all the so-called secret wars they want, but if they do something in their own secret life, then, you know—then you can bring them down. But Petraeus is often celebrated as this sort of hero who won the Iraq War because of the surge. But in reality, you had this merciless killing campaign that was being run by General Stanley McChrystal and Admiral William McRaven, where they were just bumping off the leadership of any cell that would pop off—pop up, but also just killing a tremendous number of people, in general.
And so, you had military figures that grew up in a certain era with an understanding of these programs. And when Cheney and Rumsfeld came into power with Bush, they really saw—but even before 9/11 happened, saw the historical moment that they had in front of them to sort of redraw maps and implement a vision of the world where Iran-Contra was a noble act and sort of the model for how the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy. I don&#8217;t know if you—if many of you know this, but Cheney was in Congress at the time that Iran-Contra was being investigated, and he authored the minority report in the House defending Iran-Contra and viewed it as a sort of heroic, necessary action. And they had this view of the unitary executive, the idea that when it comes to these national security issues, that the White House is essentially a dictatorship and that Congress&#8217;s only function is to fund the operations but not be involved with overseeing them or having any meaningful oversight of these operations.
And President Obama really had an opportunity to roll back some of the executive branch power grabs that Bush and Cheney had engaged in. And instead, he sort of doubled down on them and has been waging this unprecedented war against whistleblowers and using the Espionage Act and reserving the right of the state to keep secret from the American people evidence that would indicate why someone was being assassinated, to keep secret—to use the state secrets privilege in repeated lawsuits brought against former officials or torturers, having cases thrown out of court, using the full power structure of the executive branch in the same excessive way that was being used under Bush and Cheney.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy, you were talking about U.S. officials. Can you talk about McRaven and Gardez?
JEREMY SCAHILL : Well, that&#8217;s a—yeah, that&#8217;s a—so, one of the stories in the book, and also you&#8217;ll see this in our film, one of the characters in our film is Admiral William McRaven, who is, I think, one of the most powerful military figures in modern U.S. history. McRaven is the current commander of SOCOM , the Special Operations Command, in charge of all special operations activity across the globe in more than a hundred countries. But McRaven was actually an original member of SEAL Team 6, the Naval Warfare Development Group—DEVGRU, it&#8217;s called now. He was an original member of SEAL Team 6 and spent much of his career in the shadows of covert and clandestine U.S. military operations. And he would have been forward-deployed to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, but he had injured his back in a parachuting accident at a training exercise in California, where there was a—where his SEAL team was based at the time.
And so, instead of forward-deploying to Afghanistan, Admiral McRaven was tapped by General Wayne Downing, who was coming up with the—with the process for putting people on these kill lists after 9/11 and trying to take down all of the leadership of al-Qaeda or anyone that they could attach to the 9/11 attacks. And Downing asked Admiral McRaven to come and advise the National Security Council. People think of the National Security Council as this huge body. It&#8217;s the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, and then staffers. But it really is just the core officials who dictate this policy. So, if the NSC is making decisions about targeted killing, it&#8217;s really the principals that are doing national defense, national security, counterterrorism.
So McRaven became the adviser to the most powerful officials in the U.S. government in developing how to implement the hunting down and killing of Osama bin Laden and others. And at the beginning, there were, by some estimates, between seven and two dozen individuals that were put on this list for—in the beginning it was kill or capture, but the emphasis was often on kill. And McRaven saw firsthand how the White House worked, and he learned a great deal about the politics of an administration, because he was there helping to craft a policy that he would later then run when he became the head of all special operations forces.
So, McRaven is there for a couple of years, and then ends up going to Iraq, where he was the deputy commander of the Joint Special Operations Command under Stanley McChrystal, who was very close to Dick Cheney. Cheney had gotten him a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations. And McChrystal was the commander of JSOC for much of the Bush administration. McRaven is working under McChrystal, running the kill campaign in Iraq and coordinating all of these actions against against both the—what was called al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and also going after Muqtada al-Sadr&#8217;s forces and others. So he sort of understood both ends of the game: how it was run in the White House and then how it was implemented in the field.
And when President Obama came into office, the two people who were responsible for the most covert, sensitive operations, being run by primarily Cheney and Rumsfeld, outside of the chain of command, were General McChrystal and Admiral McRaven. And they became the two most influential figures in shaping the Obama administration&#8217;s counterterroism policy. And, so, President Obama really empowered those forces and actually had McRaven in the White House helping to shape the policy—not just implement the military actions, but actually shaping policy. And most people had never heard of Admiral McRaven. And, of course, he&#8217;s now a kind of iconic figure because he commanded the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. And, of course, Disney tried to trademark SEAL Team 6 after the bin Laden raid—it&#8217;s a true story.
But what I—the way that I discovered the identity of Admiral McRaven was, in February of 2010, there was a raid in Gardez in Afghanistan, in Paktia province. And a U.S. special operations team had intelligence that there was a Taliban compound and that people living in a particular compound in this area were members of the Taliban who were plotting attacks against American forces. And they raid this compound in the middle of the night, and they end up killing a number of men and two pregnant women. And it turned out that this was not a Taliban family. In fact, they weren&#8217;t even ethnic Pashtun; they were from a minority ethnic group in the province. And the man of the house was a senior Afghan police commander who had been trained by the U.S. forces. And his family showed me his documents. He had actually been trained by a private security company called MPRI , which is made up of very—of high-ranking former military officials, intelligence officials and others. And so, these women were killed, this Afghan police commander who had fought with U.S. soldiers against the Taliban and against the Haqqani network in his province, and whose house was filled with pictures of him and U.S. soldiers smiling in these pictures, had just been killed.
And when the commandos that—the U.S. commandos that raided the house realized that they had killed these women and that the men that they had killed were not in fact Taliban, and that what they were doing that night was the most anti-Taliban of things they could have been doing, which was to be having a party with live music celebrating the naming of a child—the men were dancing and playing instruments, and it was this loud, boisterous party, and we have their cellphone video from that night. So, they raid this house; these people are killed. Instead of saying, &quot;Wow! We really messed up,&quot; and owning it—and that stuff happens every day in Afghanistan. People are getting killed all the time that have no attachment whatsoever to the Taliban or al-Qaeda or the Haqqani network, and the U.S. will often just pay them a little bit of money and move on, and it never makes it into the papers. That wouldn&#8217;t have been out of place. But instead of doing that, they dug the bullets out of the women&#8217;s bodies, and then they told their commanders that what had happened in the compound that night was a Taliban ambush of this family and that they had come upon these women who had been killed by the Taliban. And then they—there were leaks saying that, well, no, this was actually an honor killing, and the women were killed by their own family members. And they put out a press release, and spokespeople made these statements saying that this—that the U.S. soldiers were essentially heroes that had gone in there and saved everyone else.
But then, the family members, because they were a prominent family—one of the fathers of the women was the vice dean at Gardez University, who spoke fluent English, started calling reporters and telling people, you know, this is not what the—what NATO is saying. Then a very great reporter named Jerome Starkey actually went down there — he writes for The Times of London — and interviewed the family members and did a story saying that this was a NATO raid—he didn&#8217;t know it was JSOC at the time—that this was a botched NATO raid and that NATO had tried to cover it up. And he told the story of these families. And when Jerome Starkey did this, NATO did something extraordinary: They named him in a press release and said, &quot;Jerome Starkey of The Times of London is lying.&quot; They actually accused him of lying. And, I mean, that could have ended Starkey&#8217;s career. And Starkey, to his credit, kept pushing and pushing, and ended up doing a number of stories and got close to that family. And Rick and I also went to this family and filmed with them, and you see this in our video, and tell this story and tell the story of what happened to Jerome Starkey, as well.
So, media attention is focused in now on this village and this one family&#8217;s compound. And eventually NATO calls up Starkey, and they said, &quot;We&#8217;re about to put out a press release. We&#8217;re going to change our version of events.&quot; And they admit that their forces had killed, that NATO forces had killed these pregnant women and that the men were not Taliban commanders. So, the family told me and told Jerome Starkey the same thing, which is that they got a call, and a person they believed was General Stanley McChrystal was going to be coming to visit them. And at the time, McChrystal was the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. And they actually were plotting—they wanted to kill General McChrystal. They wanted to stab him to death when he came into their home. And one—and one of the men told me that &quot;When they did this to my family, I wanted to put on a suicide vest and blow myself up among the Americans.&quot; Remember, these were U.S. allies, and now they&#8217;re saying, &quot;I want a suicide vest, and I want to kill General McChrystal,&quot; who was the leader of the war. And an imam at their local mosque said, &quot;No, you&#8217;re not to do that. You&#8217;re to give him hospitality, like our people do, and you&#8217;ll welcome him into your home and hear what he has to say.&quot;
So they thought that General McChrystal was coming to see them. They called Jerome Starkey. Starkey goes down there with his photographer, Jeremy Kelly, and they&#8217;re waiting with the family, thinking that McChrystal is going to show up. And up pulls this convoy of vehicles with countless Afghan military officials and some Americans interspersed with them. And in the center of this crowd is a guy with a name tag that says &quot;McRaven&quot; on it and has three stars on the lapel. And they&#8217;ve brought with them two sheep. And they approach the compound in the very place where the women had been killed and this police commander had been killed, and they offload these sheep, and they put a knife up to the sheep&#8217;s neck, and they were going to sacrifice the sheep. And what they were doing was a ritual from these people&#8217;s culture, the people who were the victims of this. And they were—it was like a forgiveness ritual. So they were coming—Admiral McRaven shows up with some sheep, after this family had been gunned down and then they—and they had blamed it on the family and then said it was Taliban, and that—
So, this is unfolding. This photographer, Jeremy Kelly, starts taking photos of—he didn&#8217;t know who he was at the time—of Admiral McRaven. And at the time, Admiral McRaven was the commander of the most elite, secretive U.S. military force. And he shows up with the sheep in Gardez, Afghanistan, and they&#8217;re offering to sacrifice it. And the American and Afghan forces try to stop the photographer. They try to hit the camera away. They say that Starkey and Jeremy Kelly are not allowed in. But the family—and it was so smart of them—the family said, &quot;No, we want him here as a witness, so that someone independent is here to know what goes on today.&quot; And so they have photos, and Starkey took, in shorthand, all the notes of what McRaven said in the room that day. And McRaven admitted to the head of this household that it was his forces that had killed these pregnant women and the Afghan police commander. And he apologized.
And then there were all these stories that went out on ABC News and others that the head of the household had accepted the apology. When I spoke to him, he said, &quot;I don&#8217;t accept their apology at all.&quot; He said, &quot;The special forces did cruel things to us. They beat us. They ruined our life. They wiped out our economy in our compound by taking away all of these people. And they killed our pregnant women. I wouldn&#8217;t trade my two sons for the entire kingdom of the United States,&quot; is what he said. And another man chimed in, and he said, &quot;These are these commandos with beards. We call them the American Taliban.&quot; And this is an anti-Taliban family.
And so, you know, when I watched the bin Laden raid coverage, and people started saying JSOC publicly, and we were showed that the dog was named Cairo and was a French—Belgian Malinois, or whatever, and then we know what guns were used. And, you know, Rick and I talk about this all the time. We know every detail that was leaked—and, of course, a lot of it turned out to be not true, but that&#8217;s for a different story. I was thinking, where was the coverage of—like, wall-to-wall coverage of this operation that they did? Because that would give us a little bit more of a balanced picture of what happens in the thousands of night raids that happen every year in Afghanistan or in Pakistan or in countries that we&#8217;re not even aware we&#8217;re raiding right now. And so, that story, for me, really resonated strongly, because I think we only have a tiny fraction of understanding the extent of the kinds of operations that are being done on a daily basis around the world, and we often hear about them when they go the way that those in power want or when the version that they want publicized is the one accepted by powerful media outlets.
AMY GOODMAN : Noam, if you could respond to what Jeremy said. And also, you have written extensively about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and I was wondering if you could comment on that.
NOAM CHOMSKY : I was saying that I&#8217;ve written plenty of unpopular articles, and one of the most unpopular had to do with the murder, not killing, of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was a suspect. There are principles, believe it or not, that are not only in the Constitution, but that go back to 800 years, to Magna Carta, the foundations of Anglo-American law. That&#8217;s—I mean, they put it in narrow terms, but the general principle, including —Jeremy is quite correct—expansion of it to people other than our own citizens, is that a person can&#8217;t be punished by the state without due process of law and a speedy trial by his peers. That&#8217;s a reasonable principle. It&#8217;s in the Constitution. It was narrow, if you look, so in the Constitution it didn&#8217;t—naturally, it didn&#8217;t apply to Native Americans, it didn&#8217;t apply to blacks, and it dubiously applied to women, who at the time were considered property, not people. But over the years, it&#8217;s been expanded. And unless it gets to the point where—that Jeremy was talking about, where it&#8217;s just human beings, we can&#8217;t call ourselves a civilized society. Anyway, those are the principles.
Osama bin Laden was a suspect. In fact, personally, I don&#8217;t have any doubt that he was responsible, but my personal opinion is nothing that stands up in a court of law. You have to have evidence. You have to have a trial, a serious trial. And it was pretty clear that the U.S. government didn&#8217;t want that. He was captured, apprehended, by, you know, the most skilled masters of war—to use the Somali warlord&#8217;s expression—that exist in the world, 80 of them, I think. He was defenseless. The first story that came out was that they had to shoot him because his wife lunged at the SEALs. And what could they do? You know, they had to kill everybody. But that story was later withdrawn. It was nothing. He was just apprehended, defenseless, murdered, body throw into the ocean, leaving obvious questions as to why. And the dangers of this operation—a lot of the aspects of this operation—so it was a criminal—in my view, just total—a complete criminal act. No justification.
But, there&#8217;s more to it than this. And I was kind of reminded of it when Jeremy talked about the Yemeni testimony at the Senate. Now, those of you might have looked at the little, tiny report on that hidden in The New York Times . He said something else, this man who testified. He said that, for years, the al-Qaeda—the Islamist radicals—al-Qaeda, they call them—had been trying to turn the people of this village against the Americans. And they didn&#8217;t succeed. But you&#8217;ve succeeded with one drone strike. You&#8217;re creating more people to kill you, as you pointed out. And the same is true of the Osama bin
Laden assassination. First of all, the action itself was extremely hazardous. The Navy SEALs who were sent in were under orders to shoot their way out if they got into any trouble. Well, if they had started—the Pakistani army is a professional army, very committed, committed to the defense of the country, the sovereignty of the country. If they had been caught there and tried to shoot their way out, they wouldn&#8217;t have been left alone. The American forces next door would have come in in a massive force, and, you know, we might have been involved in a nuclear war. I mean, it was quite possible. That was part of the threat.
But there was something else that happened. Actually, it&#8217;s been reported recently, I think in Scientific American . But it was no—I mean, the way that they identified bin Laden was through a fraudulent vaccination campaign. They had doctors posing to do a anti-polio vaccination in a poor area of this town. Well, they pretty soon figured out it&#8217;s not the poor area, it&#8217;s the rich area, so they stopped the program in the middle, which is criminal in itself. Actually, running the program was criminal. You know, using a vaccination program and doctors to try to apprehend a suspect, I mean, that violates principles going back to the Hippocratic Oath. But then they stopped it in the middle, because they thought they were in the wrong area. More crimes. Then they finally identified him. But one consequence of their actions was to—there is always in these societies serious concern about what outsiders, Americans, are up to when they come in and start, you know, sticking needles in people and so on. It&#8217;s always there. Takes a lot of work to overcome that hostility. And it was being overcome in Pakistan. Now it&#8217;s gone. They will not permit people to come in carrying out vaccinations. Polio is almost gone in the world. Pakistan is one of the last places where it survives. OK, we&#8217;re encouraging the spread of polio. And as one commentator pointed out—back to the Yemeni in the Senate—one of these days, people are going to look at this crippled child and say, &quot;You did it to us.&quot; And you can guess what&#8217;s going to happen then.
AMY GOODMAN : If you missed that testimony in the Senate, in the first-ever Senate drone hearings of this young Yemeni activist and freelance journalist, you can go to democracynow.org, because last Wednesday we played it in full. And you can watch him and also read the transcript . But, Noam, I wanted to ask you to follow up on Jeremy&#8217;s opening point around the killing—and closing point—the killing of Americans versus people anywhere.
NOAM CHOMSKY : Well, Jeremy&#8217;s point is exactly right. And the murder of Awlaki—and we should be honest about it—was—you take a look at The New York Times the next day. There was a headline which said something like, &quot;West Celebrates Death of Radical Cleric.&quot; You know, good, we murdered a radical cleric. Then, concerns began to mount over the fact that he was an American. You know, bit of a problem if we go around killing Americans. And that&#8217;s pretty scandalous. I&#8217;ll just reiterate what Jeremy said. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether they&#8217;re Americans or whatever they are; they&#8217;re people. Going back to Magna Carta, the concept of people free of these—should be free of state terror, has been expanded over the years, substantially. And it should be expanded to include people. They should be free of state terror.
And I should say that I, myself, am kind of hesitant about some of the things I do myself. Right now I&#8217;m a plaintiff in a suit on the—against the NDAA , at least the NDAA proposals, Obama&#8217;s latest. The National Defense Authorization Act included—includes provisions which make it—which—optional for the government, if it chooses, to place American citizens under indefinite detention in military prisons, which is an incredible crime. You know, again, back to Magna Carta, much worse. And Chris Hedges organized a suit to try to oppose this, and I signed on, but with reservations, because what difference does it make if they&#8217;re American citizens? I mean, the same NDAA act authorized—in fact, makes it mandatory in some circumstances—for the government to place non-Americans under indefinite preventive detention. Should be—that&#8217;s what we should be—that&#8217;s what we should be concerned with.
This suit, incidentally, has taken an interesting course. Obama originally had said that he was opposed to those provisions in the act, but he would sign them. Then, when the case went to court, at the lower court level, the government case—the plaintiffs won. The judge threw out the government prosecution, on the—because the prosecution refused to answer a simple question: Will these plaintiffs be subject to administrative detention? Could they be? And they refused to answer that, so the judge threw that out. Obama immediately took it to the higher court. That shows you how much opposed he is to it. It will work its way to the Supreme Court. And given the Supreme Court, the government will probably win. Well, you know, these are things we should really be concerned about.
It&#8217;s not—if you want to know what—I&#8217;m sure you all know, but if you really want to know in detail what happens to non-citizens, read some of the testimonies. So, for example, there&#8217;s a recent book that came out by an Australian—David Hill, I think his name is. Very much worth reading. He&#8217;s a young man who was hiking around somewhere in northern Afghanistan. He was picked—
AMY GOODMAN : David Hicks.
NOAM CHOMSKY : Hmm?
AMY GOODMAN : David Hicks.
NOAM CHOMSKY : David Hicks, yeah. He was picked up by the Northern Alliance, the U.S. allies. They sold him for bounty to the American forces. And then he describes his years in Bagram and then at Guantánamo, and it was six or seven years. The torture, the sadism, the cruelty are just indescribable. These are American soldiers, you know, elite American soldiers. You just really have to read that to—I mean, if anybody knows American history, it won&#8217;t surprise you that much, but it&#8217;s right in front of our eyes.
And he said something quite interesting in his testimony, which I was struck by. He says the soldiers—of course, these guys were shackled, bound, you know, couldn&#8217;t move, surrounded by all kinds of military police and so on. But he said the guards were afraid of the prisoners. He said the guards had been so brainwashed by whatever training they went through, that they thought these prisoners were superhuman. He said that guards would come to his cell sometimes, where he&#8217;s shackled and, you know, so on, and ask him to perform some of his feats, like, you know, climb on the ceilings. &quot;Will you show us how you do it?&quot; And this kind of thing. And, in fact, when they took them out to be interrogated, they&#8217;d have like a platoon of marines around them to make sure that they didn&#8217;t carry out some incredibly monstrous act that these soldiers had probably seen in a video movie somewhere. But he said they really were terrified of the prisoners.
And that tells us something else about our own society, that what are we doing to our own society when we&#8217;re creating such terror and fear among ordinary people? I mean, it&#8217;s kind of like having guns in—you know, armed policemen in schools. Is that what you want your children to see, that we live in a society where you have to have people with guns around to protect you from some unimaginable danger? And here, there&#8217;s another serious—as far as American culture is concerned, something very much to be concerned about. This is a very frightened society, always has been—goes back to colonial times. Very striking. Today it is taking a remarkable form. If you look at the—you know, the gun culture, the people who are pressing for having guns are terrified. A lot of them are simply terrified. They&#8217;re like these guards standing outside the prison. What are they terrified of? You&#8217;ve got to have guns to protect theirselves from who? The federal government, the United Nations, aliens, whoever it may be. We don&#8217;t know what horrible force is coming after us, but we have to have guns to protect ourselves. I mean, put aside the fact the guns wouldn&#8217;t do you any good and you&#8217;ll probably kill each other, but the fear throughout the society is simply incredible.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL : Just a couple of things in response to that. I was remembering, when you were talking about David Hicks&#8217; story, this case that I came across in Yemen of a journalist named Abdulelah Haider Shaye. When President Obama first authorized the bombing of Yemen was in December of 2009. The first strike that we know of authorized under the Obama administration was on December 17th, 2009, in Yemen. There hadn&#8217;t been a bombing, a U.S. bombing, there, that we know of, since November of 2002. The first drone strike, actually, that was conducted outside of Afghanistan was in Yemen in 2002, and it killed a number of people, including a U.S. citizen named Kemal Derwish. And he actually was not—was not supposedly the target of that strike, but they claimed that he had ties to a terror cell called the Lackawanna Six, which, like many of the plots we&#8217;ve seen lately, seemed to have been the—in large part, the FBI breaking up its own plot, and which is really scandalous if you look at how many times this has happened and all these cases of entrapment.
But so, President Obama starts—decides to start bombing Yemen in December of 2009. They do this strike on what they are told by the Yemeni government and by U.S. intelligence is an al-Qaeda training camp and that there is this notorious al-Qaeda figure who&#8217;s known to be in the camp. Well, it turned out that this guy, when we investigated it and went to Yemen and spoke to people that knew him and knew the infrastructure of AQAP , that he was an old jihadist who had fought in the mujahideen war in Afghanistan and had a very peripheral connection to al-Qaeda. So it seems like what happened is that, you know, the U.S. outsources a lot of its intelligence gathering in Yemen to notoriously corrupt Yemeni officials and agencies and to the Saudis, and the Saudis have their own war that they&#8217;re waging inside of Yemen. The U.S.-backed dictatorship of Ali Abdullah Saleh was playing multiple sides—playing the Saudis, playing the U.S., playing various tribes inside the country. There were several occasions when Saleh fed the U.S. intelligence saying someone was al-Qaeda, and it turned out to being a political opponent of the regime that was being killed or assassinated by the U.S. on behalf, in the service of the dictator of Yemen.
And so, in this case, on December 17th, 2009, they bomb this village, supposedly to kill this one guy, who does not seem to have been anything even vaguely resembling a senior al-Qaeda figure in the country. And after the missile strike happens, the Yemeni government puts out a press release taking credit for the strike, saying it had conducted these air strikes. And the Obama administration congratulated the Yemeni government on taking the fight to the terrorists in Yemen.
A number of tribal leaders in Yemen got phone calls from this small, poor Bedouin village called al-Majalah that these missiles had slammed into the area and had shredded people into meat. And these tribal leaders went there, and also a young—this young journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, who had done reporting and work for The Washington Post , for ABC News, for Al Jazeera. He was a very, very well-known journalist in Yemen. And he was known because he was a brave guy who would go and actually interview al-Qaeda figures. Much of what the United States knows about certain leaders in al-Qaeda comes from the reporting of Abdulelah Haider Shaye. You could look at one way and say he was a very valuable guy to have out talking to these people, because it helped the U.S. intelligence officials understand or operatives understand who it was they were supposedly trying to kill. But that&#8217;s for a different story.
So this guy goes there. These tribal leaders go there. And they take photographs of the missile parts. And they then show them, broadcast them on Al Jazeera and other outlets, and share them with Amnesty International. And Amnesty International has a weapons expert come in and analyze them, and they determined that they were—that it was a cruise missile attack. And when Rick and I were in Abyan province, we had the parts filmed. They&#8217;re still there in the desert, by the way. You can go—if you want to try to go to al-Majalah, you can go there, and they&#8217;re still in the middle of the desert, with &quot;General Dynamics&quot; and &quot;Made in the U.S.A.&quot; right there, visible, and we show this in our film. We show the aftermath of this bombing and the missile parts that were still there, you know, well after the bombs had dropped.
But the U.S. also—but the other bombs that they found there were cluster bombs, which of course are banned under international conventions. And the cluster bombs are basically—I saw the effect of them when the U.S. was using them in the Kosovo War in 1999. I went to the Nis marketplace after it was bombed in Serbia and saw the aftermath of it. They&#8217;re like flying land mines, and they shred everything in its path into meat and limbs. And it is horrifying to see the aftermath of any bombing, but cluster bombs are a particularly brutal weapon. And there were unexploded cluster bombs that were left there, and after the bombing had taken place, some children were playing near a cluster bomb and picked one of them up, and it blew them to pieces, two days after the bombing had happened.
So they take these pictures. They send them to Amnesty International. And these sheikhs, tribal sheikhs, organized a gathering to say that this is not the Yemeni government that did this, because Yemen doesn&#8217;t have these missiles. Amnesty does an analysis of them and determines that they were in fact U.S. weapons and that only the United States could have been responsible for that bombing.
And so, this sort of scandal was brewing inside of Yemen because the people who were killed there—there were at least 46 people killed. Fourteen of the people killed were women, and 21 were children. When the Yemeni Parliament, which is a—which is supported by the United States, went to investigate it, they listed all of the dead—their ages, their names, their genders—and I got a copy of that report and have the list of every single person that we know of that was killed in that strike. And we added it up, and it was 14 women and 21 children among the 46 dead, and in the pursuit of trying to kill this one person who the president of the United States had been told was this high-value target, who everyone in Yemen says was an older mujahideen who had primarily done his jihad in Afghanistan and not inside of Yemen.
When this started to become public, this Yemeni journalist was going on Al Jazeera and was helping other U.S. media outlets report that story, that it was in fact a U.S. strike. U.S. officials were denying it, and eventually then anonymously said, &quot;Yes, we were behind the strike,&quot; but General David Petraeus said that no civilians were actually killed in the strike and that it&#8217;s all a big exaggeration, which was very offensive to Yemenis of all political stripes. And so, it was an enduring scandal.
And this one journalist was really pushing this story, and he continued to report on other—on the expanding U.S. air war in Yemen. And one night, in the middle of the night, he was—in the middle of the day, he was out with a friend of his who was a political cartoonist, and they were shopping, and he was snatched by U.S.-backed, U.S.-trained counterterrorism forces in Sana&#8217;a, the capital of Yemen, and was taken to the political security prison and was beaten bloody by the security services and told that he was to stop talking about the missile strikes. And then they released him onto the streets. And what this journalist did was to go straight to Al Jazeera and say, &quot;I was just beaten by the political security officers, and they&#8217;re trying to stop me from talking about the U.S. missile strikes that are happening in the country.&quot;
And soon after he did that, his house was raided by the CTU , the counterterrorism unit, which is a JSOC - and CIA -trained entity. And they snatched him out of his home and disappeared him for 30 days. And no one knew where he was. And then they hauled him into a court that had been specifically set up by the dictatorship to prosecute journalists for crimes against the state, and was ultimately convicted of being an al-Qaeda facilitator, because he facilitated al-Qaeda members being able to speak to the media, and which—I&#8217;ve talked to people in U.S. intelligence who actually also believe that this case is outrageous, because they said, &quot;You took off the streets one of the best reporters that we would read so we could actually understand what was going on in Yemen, because of the notorious corruption of all of the informants.&quot;
So he is put into this prison. He&#8217;s put on trial, total sham trial. His lawyers refuse to present a defense. No lawyer would represent him, at his own request, because he said, &quot;I don&#8217;t want to recognize a shred of legitimacy of this process.&quot; And we have video of him when he is in prison. They bring him in front of the—into the courtroom in a cell. They have him in a cage in a cell. And as they&#8217;re pulling him away, he said, &quot;My crime is exposing the American missile attack on the tiny Bedouin village of al-Majalah in Abyan province. They&#8217;re putting me in jail because I exposed their cruise missile attack.&quot; And he said, &quot;This is what happens when Yemeni journalists are real journalists,&quot; and they pull him away, and they disappear him into this prison.
There was so much outrage in Yemen, from his tribe and from human rights organizations and from mainstream civil society in Yemen, that the dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had no choice but to issue a pardon against Abdulelah Haider Shaye. This happens a lot in Yemen. Someone gets arrests, the tribes protest, and then the person is released. It&#8217;s a whole—it&#8217;s a game that&#8217;s been playing out in that country for a long time. So, he&#8217;s going to issue a pardon, and the official news service, the Saba News Agency, does a report saying that this journalist is going to be pardoned.
That day, the dictator of Yemen receives a phone call from the White House—not from some liaison, not from secretary of state—from President Obama himself, personally. And President Obama tells the dictator of Yemen that he&#8217;s deeply concerned about news that Abdulelah Haider Shaye is going to be released. And the pardon is torn up. And lest you think I&#8217;m making this up or I&#8217;ve just heard it secondhand, I know this because the White House put it on their own website in a read-out of the phone call from that day. And when I called the State Department to ask them — this is a year-and-a-half after Abdulelah Haider had been in prison since this phone call — &quot;What is the U.S. State Department&#8217;s position on Abdulelah Haider Shaye?&quot; they said, &quot;Our position remains the same as that articulated by President Obama in that phone call. We believe he should be kept in prison.&quot; So this journalist is in prison because of the president of the United States making a phone call and having his pardon ripped up.
And he is not doing well in prison. I&#8217;m in touch with his family. He is—my understanding is that he&#8217;s losing—he&#8217;s starting to lose his mind, which is very common with people that are kept in solitary confinement or in these conditions.
And none of news organizations that worked with him in the U.S.—ABC News, Washington Post and—none of them have said anything about his case. Where are they? When he&#8217;s getting them sensationalist footage, when he interviewed Anwar al-Awlaki, they all wanted to broadcast his comments about Nidal Hasan, you know, who conducted the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. And they wanted to ask—they wanted to know what Awlaki said about the underwear bomber. You know why we know what Awlaki thought about that? Because Abdulelah Haider Shaye found him, interviewed him and published it in The Washington Post , on NBC . And yet, when he&#8217;s in prison, they say nothing. It&#8217;s shameful. It&#8217;s shameful.
And that&#8217;s often what happens in these cases. Journalists—journalists, like myself and others, we go into these countries. And, you know, I encourage people to read the acknowledgments in my book, because I tell you—I name the names of all of the journalists in Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world who made it possible for this story to be told. And they&#8217;re the real heroes of this. Unfamous journalists, who report oftentimes not in English, take the great risks. People like me, I go in, and I can go somewhere for a few weeks or a month, and I depend on them to be able to tell these stories. And so, when something happens to one of our colleagues—Somalia, journalists are being gunned down in record numbers; in Yemen, journalists are being thrown in prison—if we don&#8217;t speak up when we have a platform and defend our colleagues, we should be ashamed of ourselves, and we should be ashamed to call ourselves journalists.
AMY GOODMAN : Noam, as we wrap up, this is the week that the Bush library is being opened in Dallas, where there is an evaluation, a reevaluation going on of his record. It&#8217;s the 10th anniversary of the War in Iraq. And today we&#8217;re talking about the years of the Obama administration. Can you talk about President Obama&#8217;s record?
NOAM CHOMSKY : Well, let me tell you what I felt, and maybe some of the rest of you felt, when I saw the pictures of the Bush library presentation. There was a group of men standing there, former presidents, the ones that are alive. Every one of them is a major criminal. A major criminal. Obama is continuing the grand tradition—shouldn&#8217;t be a great surprise. And I guess the sentence that came to my mind at the time is actually from Thomas Jefferson, who said once that—he said, &quot;I tremble for my country when I think that God is just, and some day will bring us to his judgment.&quot; Well, if we can&#8217;t them to some kind of judgment either, if not in the courts, at least in public opinion, then it&#8217;s kind of like what Jeremy said: We&#8217;re not doing are duty just as responsible people.
AMY GOODMAN : And let—Jeremy, we&#8217;re going to end with you. This is your second major book. Your first book was Blackwater: The Rise of the World&#8217;s Most Powerful Mercenary Army , where you really reframed—you reframed the whole discussion about mercenaries and the privatization of the U.S. military. Suffice it to say, here we are, what, six years later, and Erik Prince had to move, the founder of Blackwater, to Abu Dhabi, and you remain here in the United States. Less—and I wanted to ask, with this second book—and Jeremy is going to be signing afterwards, and I encourage everyone to get this book, not just for interesting summer reading, but that we can see a spring and a summer of U.S. foreign policy. When we are informed, what a difference it makes to begin with those tools, to be empowered, to challenge what we—how we are represented in the rest of the world. But I want to ask you, Jeremy, finally—your new book is called Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield . What are you hoping to accomplish with this book? And why you even call it Dirty Wars ?
JEREMY SCAHILL : One thing that I think you&#8217;ll notice if you read the book—you know, I&#8217;ve talked to friends about the—you know, when I wrote Blackwater . I think I&#8217;ve grown up a lot since I wrote that book, in a sense, because something really strange happened to me after I wrote Blackwater , and that was that I started to get emails and other electronic communications from people that had served in special operations forces or worked with the CIA—not senior officials. I don&#8217;t hobnob with the powerful ever. In fact, when I was talking about this official who told me what he said about the killing of Abdulrahman, I had to chase him around the campus of a university I found him on, and, you know, he did not want to speak to me. I had to sort of chase him. That&#8217;s pretty much the only interaction I have with powerful officials is chasing them somewhere.
But I started to get communications from operators and people that were doing these operations. And there was a sort of a pattern to them early on, and sometimes they would come to events and come up to me afterwards. And they would say, you know, &quot;I don&#8217;t&quot;—a lot of them would say, &quot;I don&#8217;t care very much for your politics, but you were totally right about Blackwater. You know, I can&#8217;t stand them.&quot; And I got to know people in that world, in that community, because they also were—had problems with Blackwater and didn&#8217;t like various actions or problems that the company&#8217;s actions had caused for their units or the fact that they were getting paid so much more than the conventional soldiers—whatever it was. But I started a dialogue with some of these people that continues to this day, and I&#8217;ve learned a tremendous amount from them about how these operations run.
And what I tried to do in the book—I mean, I hope I succeeded, to a degree, with it—is to weave in and out of stories that show the complicated landscape of the killing fields and the men who do the operations on the ground, the figures who are identified as the targets, the civilians that are forced to live on the other side of the barrel of the gun or in the place where the bombs are going off, and to put it in a historical context.
I think if you had asked me years ago what I think—you know, what I wanted to accomplish or what I think should be done, I would have pretended to have an answer, because I think it&#8217;s—I was, you know—I was bull-headed.
I think that we, unfortunately, are only at the very beginning of a conversation that we have to—that&#8217;s urgent and that we have to have in this country about how far we, as a society, have let things go since 9/11 in the name of protecting our security. And I concur very much with what Noam said about being gripped by fear. You know, fear is a very powerful force. And if you don&#8217;t figure out a way to confront it and not be owned by it, then things like the PATRIOT Act happen, and civil liberties get rolled back. And, you know, people say, &quot;Oh, NDAA , the people that are whining about that are crazy, and it&#8217;s conspiracy theory,&quot; and all of these things. And you just have—just study history. It starts somewhere. It starts with an idea, and then a crisis happens, and they implement the idea that&#8217;s been laying around. You know, it&#8217;s a very age-old concept.
And my hope is that people use the book as actionable intelligence, which is actually an—you know, a term in the CIA or in the targeting business. But I want it to be actionable intelligence to work toward a democratic process of confronting our own fear and also holding those in power accountable, whether they&#8217;re Democrats or Republicans. I think all of us should be defined not by the public pronouncements of politicians, but by what we do in response to the actions they&#8217;re doing in our name. And that&#8217;s the spirit I wrote this book in. Update: See Jeremy Scahill speak this Friday in New York City at 7pm in the Tishman Auditorium at The New School. Click here for full event details.

Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill and author Noam Chomsky recently sat down together at Harvard University to discuss Scahill’s groundbreaking new book, "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield." Amy Goodman hosted the discussion, which was sponsored by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and the ACLU of Massachusetts.

TRANSCRIPT

AMYGOODMAN: What an honor it is to be here with Jeremy Scahill and Noam Chomsky. And I wanted to start with Noam responding Jeremy’s investigations and the description, putting it in the context of the history of U.S. foreign policy.

NOAMCHOMSKY: I had received an email this morning from a person who I’m sure many of you know about. It’s Fred Branfman. He’s a counterpart of Jeremy from back in the '60s. He's the person who worked for years, with enormous courage and effort, to try to expose what were called the "secret wars." The secret wars were perfectly public wars which the media were keeping secret, government. And Fred—this was in Laos—was—he finally did succeed in breaking through, and a tremendous exposure of huge wars that were going on—a war in northern Laos attacking a peasant society that was so remote from what was happening in the Indochina wars that many of them probably didn’t even know they were in Laos. Actually, with Fred, I met many of them in refugee camps after a CIA mercenary army drove them out from areas where they had been hiding in caves for two years under intense bombardment. He then proceeded to help expose the even worse wars in Cambodia and then the air wars, in general. Anyway, background.

One thing he pointed—what he pointed—he’s a great admirer of Jeremy’s, I should say, for very good reasons, which you’ve just heard and, I hope, will read and see. But Fred made an interesting point. He reminded me of a comment by a high American official back in 1968, who Fred was trying to get to speak. It’s not easy to get these people to speak, but he did. And this official—he was asking him, "Why is this intensive bombing going on of northern Laos?" Nothing to do with the war in Indochina, just destruction of a poor peasant society, one of the most malevolent acts of modern history, I think. And he finally—the official finally explained. He said, "Look, there’s a temporary bombing of North—a cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam, and we have all these planes, and we don’t have anything to do with them. So we’ll bomb Laos."

OK, I think that’s the lesson of history that we should bare in mind in reading Jeremy’s exposures of, first, Blackwater and the mercenary army, and now JSOC, the so-called secret army—secret the same way the secret wars were secret. If you have a reporter who’s willing to—that has the courage and integrity to expose it, you can expose it. These resources are there. They’re growing. They have a self-generating capacity. They’re going to get larger and larger. They’re going to want more and more to do. And if one target disappears, they’ll be turned somewhere else. And as Jeremy hinted, they’ll be turned here.

And there’s a history of that, too. If some of you want to read about it, there’s a very important book by a historian, very good historian, Al McCoy, who, among other things, studied the history of drugs and torture and so on. But he’s a Philippine historian mainly, and he did a study of the Philippine War, the U.S. counterinsurgency war in the Philippines in the—over a century ago. It was a brutal, murderous war, hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, a horror story. And he pointed out that, at the time, after the war was over, when the so-called pacification began, the U.S. forces were—the Marines, mostly, in those days—were using the highest technology available to develop a surveillance system over the Philippine society, so they could do what—what, by our standards now, at a primitive level, the kinds of things that Jeremy described. And they did. And it’s turned the Philippines into a—this is the Philippines a hundred years later, have never escaped from this. Philippine society is permeated by the consequences of this long terror war.

But McCoy pointed out something else. He pointed out that these measures, from before the First World War, were very quickly picked up domestically, both by the British and the United States, and applied to surveillance and control techniques within their own societies—the FBI here and so on. And now that’s what we can expect, and signs of it are already around. The resources are there. They’re self-generating. They’re kept under a veil, so not too much inspection of them, though there could be, as you’ve seen. They’re going to grow. They’re going to develop. If the current targets disappear, they’ll move on to new targets, because that’s the nature of these systems, just like the planes who had nowhere to bomb so they decided to send them to bomb northern Laos. And they’ll come home. Already happening. And we can expect more and more of it. I think that’s the historical background that should very much be kept in mind.

AMYGOODMAN: Jeremy?

JEREMYSCAHILL: [inaudible] Sorry. You know, there was a—there was a time when Amy and I, I think we were in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we were—I’m from Milwaukee, but we were doing Democracy Now!, the show, from there, and Amy had been on a speaking tour going all around the country and had given probably, you know, 200 speeches in like 199 days or something. I mean, it was this incredible tour that she was on. And in the middle of a show, she lost her voice in—I mean, had some coughing and then lost her voice. And it was this moment on the air no one knew what to do, because this—the voice we all listen to all the time all of a sudden like went sort of dead on the air. And I think there was a congresswoman or someone on the show, who was left to kind of deal with it. And Amy’s like going like this, like—and she’s not—she’s just meaning, like, "Let’s go to break." But anyway, so, I think it’s a product of as much great speaking as you do.

One thing, though, in response to this, you know, I think that one thing that’s important to keep in mind is that very little of what this administration or the Bush administration did was actually new ideas. They were old, existing ideas and resurrections of certain plans and programs. I mean, if you look at the Phoenix program in Vietnam, which was this assassination program that was being run in Vietnam, there are very serious parallels to what the United States was doing in Iraq.

You know, the dominant historical narrative is that the surge won the Iraq War. And General Petraeus, had he not gone down for—you know, the only thing that seems to be capable of taking down the powerful is these sort of—you know, what they do in their top-secret chambers. They can wage all the so-called secret wars they want, but if they do something in their own secret life, then, you know—then you can bring them down. But Petraeus is often celebrated as this sort of hero who won the Iraq War because of the surge. But in reality, you had this merciless killing campaign that was being run by General Stanley McChrystal and Admiral William McRaven, where they were just bumping off the leadership of any cell that would pop off—pop up, but also just killing a tremendous number of people, in general.

And so, you had military figures that grew up in a certain era with an understanding of these programs. And when Cheney and Rumsfeld came into power with Bush, they really saw—but even before 9/11 happened, saw the historical moment that they had in front of them to sort of redraw maps and implement a vision of the world where Iran-Contra was a noble act and sort of the model for how the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy. I don’t know if you—if many of you know this, but Cheney was in Congress at the time that Iran-Contra was being investigated, and he authored the minority report in the House defending Iran-Contra and viewed it as a sort of heroic, necessary action. And they had this view of the unitary executive, the idea that when it comes to these national security issues, that the White House is essentially a dictatorship and that Congress’s only function is to fund the operations but not be involved with overseeing them or having any meaningful oversight of these operations.

And President Obama really had an opportunity to roll back some of the executive branch power grabs that Bush and Cheney had engaged in. And instead, he sort of doubled down on them and has been waging this unprecedented war against whistleblowers and using the Espionage Act and reserving the right of the state to keep secret from the American people evidence that would indicate why someone was being assassinated, to keep secret—to use the state secrets privilege in repeated lawsuits brought against former officials or torturers, having cases thrown out of court, using the full power structure of the executive branch in the same excessive way that was being used under Bush and Cheney.

AMYGOODMAN: Jeremy, you were talking about U.S. officials. Can you talk about McRaven and Gardez?

JEREMYSCAHILL: Well, that’s a—yeah, that’s a—so, one of the stories in the book, and also you’ll see this in our film, one of the characters in our film is Admiral William McRaven, who is, I think, one of the most powerful military figures in modern U.S. history. McRaven is the current commander of SOCOM, the Special Operations Command, in charge of all special operations activity across the globe in more than a hundred countries. But McRaven was actually an original member of SEAL Team 6, the Naval Warfare Development Group—DEVGRU, it’s called now. He was an original member of SEAL Team 6 and spent much of his career in the shadows of covert and clandestine U.S. military operations. And he would have been forward-deployed to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, but he had injured his back in a parachuting accident at a training exercise in California, where there was a—where his SEAL team was based at the time.

And so, instead of forward-deploying to Afghanistan, Admiral McRaven was tapped by General Wayne Downing, who was coming up with the—with the process for putting people on these kill lists after 9/11 and trying to take down all of the leadership of al-Qaeda or anyone that they could attach to the 9/11 attacks. And Downing asked Admiral McRaven to come and advise the National Security Council. People think of the National Security Council as this huge body. It’s the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, and then staffers. But it really is just the core officials who dictate this policy. So, if the NSC is making decisions about targeted killing, it’s really the principals that are doing national defense, national security, counterterrorism.

So McRaven became the adviser to the most powerful officials in the U.S. government in developing how to implement the hunting down and killing of Osama bin Laden and others. And at the beginning, there were, by some estimates, between seven and two dozen individuals that were put on this list for—in the beginning it was kill or capture, but the emphasis was often on kill. And McRaven saw firsthand how the White House worked, and he learned a great deal about the politics of an administration, because he was there helping to craft a policy that he would later then run when he became the head of all special operations forces.

So, McRaven is there for a couple of years, and then ends up going to Iraq, where he was the deputy commander of the Joint Special Operations Command under Stanley McChrystal, who was very close to Dick Cheney. Cheney had gotten him a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations. And McChrystal was the commander of JSOC for much of the Bush administration. McRaven is working under McChrystal, running the kill campaign in Iraq and coordinating all of these actions against against both the—what was called al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and also going after Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces and others. So he sort of understood both ends of the game: how it was run in the White House and then how it was implemented in the field.

And when President Obama came into office, the two people who were responsible for the most covert, sensitive operations, being run by primarily Cheney and Rumsfeld, outside of the chain of command, were General McChrystal and Admiral McRaven. And they became the two most influential figures in shaping the Obama administration’s counterterroism policy. And, so, President Obama really empowered those forces and actually had McRaven in the White House helping to shape the policy—not just implement the military actions, but actually shaping policy. And most people had never heard of Admiral McRaven. And, of course, he’s now a kind of iconic figure because he commanded the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. And, of course, Disney tried to trademark SEAL Team 6 after the bin Laden raid—it’s a true story.

But what I—the way that I discovered the identity of Admiral McRaven was, in February of 2010, there was a raid in Gardez in Afghanistan, in Paktia province. And a U.S. special operations team had intelligence that there was a Taliban compound and that people living in a particular compound in this area were members of the Taliban who were plotting attacks against American forces. And they raid this compound in the middle of the night, and they end up killing a number of men and two pregnant women. And it turned out that this was not a Taliban family. In fact, they weren’t even ethnic Pashtun; they were from a minority ethnic group in the province. And the man of the house was a senior Afghan police commander who had been trained by the U.S. forces. And his family showed me his documents. He had actually been trained by a private security company called MPRI, which is made up of very—of high-ranking former military officials, intelligence officials and others. And so, these women were killed, this Afghan police commander who had fought with U.S. soldiers against the Taliban and against the Haqqani network in his province, and whose house was filled with pictures of him and U.S. soldiers smiling in these pictures, had just been killed.

And when the commandos that—the U.S. commandos that raided the house realized that they had killed these women and that the men that they had killed were not in fact Taliban, and that what they were doing that night was the most anti-Taliban of things they could have been doing, which was to be having a party with live music celebrating the naming of a child—the men were dancing and playing instruments, and it was this loud, boisterous party, and we have their cellphone video from that night. So, they raid this house; these people are killed. Instead of saying, "Wow! We really messed up," and owning it—and that stuff happens every day in Afghanistan. People are getting killed all the time that have no attachment whatsoever to the Taliban or al-Qaeda or the Haqqani network, and the U.S. will often just pay them a little bit of money and move on, and it never makes it into the papers. That wouldn’t have been out of place. But instead of doing that, they dug the bullets out of the women’s bodies, and then they told their commanders that what had happened in the compound that night was a Taliban ambush of this family and that they had come upon these women who had been killed by the Taliban. And then they—there were leaks saying that, well, no, this was actually an honor killing, and the women were killed by their own family members. And they put out a press release, and spokespeople made these statements saying that this—that the U.S. soldiers were essentially heroes that had gone in there and saved everyone else.

But then, the family members, because they were a prominent family—one of the fathers of the women was the vice dean at Gardez University, who spoke fluent English, started calling reporters and telling people, you know, this is not what the—what NATO is saying. Then a very great reporter named Jerome Starkey actually went down there — he writes for The Times of London — and interviewed the family members and did a story saying that this was a NATO raid—he didn’t know it was JSOC at the time—that this was a botched NATO raid and that NATO had tried to cover it up. And he told the story of these families. And when Jerome Starkey did this, NATO did something extraordinary: They named him in a press release and said, "Jerome Starkey of The Times of London is lying." They actually accused him of lying. And, I mean, that could have ended Starkey’s career. And Starkey, to his credit, kept pushing and pushing, and ended up doing a number of stories and got close to that family. And Rick and I also went to this family and filmed with them, and you see this in our video, and tell this story and tell the story of what happened to Jerome Starkey, as well.

So, media attention is focused in now on this village and this one family’s compound. And eventually NATO calls up Starkey, and they said, "We’re about to put out a press release. We’re going to change our version of events." And they admit that their forces had killed, that NATO forces had killed these pregnant women and that the men were not Taliban commanders. So, the family told me and told Jerome Starkey the same thing, which is that they got a call, and a person they believed was General Stanley McChrystal was going to be coming to visit them. And at the time, McChrystal was the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. And they actually were plotting—they wanted to kill General McChrystal. They wanted to stab him to death when he came into their home. And one—and one of the men told me that "When they did this to my family, I wanted to put on a suicide vest and blow myself up among the Americans." Remember, these were U.S. allies, and now they’re saying, "I want a suicide vest, and I want to kill General McChrystal," who was the leader of the war. And an imam at their local mosque said, "No, you’re not to do that. You’re to give him hospitality, like our people do, and you’ll welcome him into your home and hear what he has to say."

So they thought that General McChrystal was coming to see them. They called Jerome Starkey. Starkey goes down there with his photographer, Jeremy Kelly, and they’re waiting with the family, thinking that McChrystal is going to show up. And up pulls this convoy of vehicles with countless Afghan military officials and some Americans interspersed with them. And in the center of this crowd is a guy with a name tag that says "McRaven" on it and has three stars on the lapel. And they’ve brought with them two sheep. And they approach the compound in the very place where the women had been killed and this police commander had been killed, and they offload these sheep, and they put a knife up to the sheep’s neck, and they were going to sacrifice the sheep. And what they were doing was a ritual from these people’s culture, the people who were the victims of this. And they were—it was like a forgiveness ritual. So they were coming—Admiral McRaven shows up with some sheep, after this family had been gunned down and then they—and they had blamed it on the family and then said it was Taliban, and that—

So, this is unfolding. This photographer, Jeremy Kelly, starts taking photos of—he didn’t know who he was at the time—of Admiral McRaven. And at the time, Admiral McRaven was the commander of the most elite, secretive U.S. military force. And he shows up with the sheep in Gardez, Afghanistan, and they’re offering to sacrifice it. And the American and Afghan forces try to stop the photographer. They try to hit the camera away. They say that Starkey and Jeremy Kelly are not allowed in. But the family—and it was so smart of them—the family said, "No, we want him here as a witness, so that someone independent is here to know what goes on today." And so they have photos, and Starkey took, in shorthand, all the notes of what McRaven said in the room that day. And McRaven admitted to the head of this household that it was his forces that had killed these pregnant women and the Afghan police commander. And he apologized.

And then there were all these stories that went out on ABC News and others that the head of the household had accepted the apology. When I spoke to him, he said, "I don’t accept their apology at all." He said, "The special forces did cruel things to us. They beat us. They ruined our life. They wiped out our economy in our compound by taking away all of these people. And they killed our pregnant women. I wouldn’t trade my two sons for the entire kingdom of the United States," is what he said. And another man chimed in, and he said, "These are these commandos with beards. We call them the American Taliban." And this is an anti-Taliban family.

And so, you know, when I watched the bin Laden raid coverage, and people started saying JSOC publicly, and we were showed that the dog was named Cairo and was a French—Belgian Malinois, or whatever, and then we know what guns were used. And, you know, Rick and I talk about this all the time. We know every detail that was leaked—and, of course, a lot of it turned out to be not true, but that’s for a different story. I was thinking, where was the coverage of—like, wall-to-wall coverage of this operation that they did? Because that would give us a little bit more of a balanced picture of what happens in the thousands of night raids that happen every year in Afghanistan or in Pakistan or in countries that we’re not even aware we’re raiding right now. And so, that story, for me, really resonated strongly, because I think we only have a tiny fraction of understanding the extent of the kinds of operations that are being done on a daily basis around the world, and we often hear about them when they go the way that those in power want or when the version that they want publicized is the one accepted by powerful media outlets.

AMYGOODMAN: Noam, if you could respond to what Jeremy said. And also, you have written extensively about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and I was wondering if you could comment on that.

NOAMCHOMSKY: I was saying that I’ve written plenty of unpopular articles, and one of the most unpopular had to do with the murder, not killing, of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was a suspect. There are principles, believe it or not, that are not only in the Constitution, but that go back to 800 years, to Magna Carta, the foundations of Anglo-American law. That’s—I mean, they put it in narrow terms, but the general principle, including —Jeremy is quite correct—expansion of it to people other than our own citizens, is that a person can’t be punished by the state without due process of law and a speedy trial by his peers. That’s a reasonable principle. It’s in the Constitution. It was narrow, if you look, so in the Constitution it didn’t—naturally, it didn’t apply to Native Americans, it didn’t apply to blacks, and it dubiously applied to women, who at the time were considered property, not people. But over the years, it’s been expanded. And unless it gets to the point where—that Jeremy was talking about, where it’s just human beings, we can’t call ourselves a civilized society. Anyway, those are the principles.

Osama bin Laden was a suspect. In fact, personally, I don’t have any doubt that he was responsible, but my personal opinion is nothing that stands up in a court of law. You have to have evidence. You have to have a trial, a serious trial. And it was pretty clear that the U.S. government didn’t want that. He was captured, apprehended, by, you know, the most skilled masters of war—to use the Somali warlord’s expression—that exist in the world, 80 of them, I think. He was defenseless. The first story that came out was that they had to shoot him because his wife lunged at the SEALs. And what could they do? You know, they had to kill everybody. But that story was later withdrawn. It was nothing. He was just apprehended, defenseless, murdered, body throw into the ocean, leaving obvious questions as to why. And the dangers of this operation—a lot of the aspects of this operation—so it was a criminal—in my view, just total—a complete criminal act. No justification.

But, there’s more to it than this. And I was kind of reminded of it when Jeremy talked about the Yemeni testimony at the Senate. Now, those of you might have looked at the little, tiny report on that hidden in The New York Times. He said something else, this man who testified. He said that, for years, the al-Qaeda—the Islamist radicals—al-Qaeda, they call them—had been trying to turn the people of this village against the Americans. And they didn’t succeed. But you’ve succeeded with one drone strike. You’re creating more people to kill you, as you pointed out. And the same is true of the Osama bin
Laden assassination. First of all, the action itself was extremely hazardous. The Navy SEALs who were sent in were under orders to shoot their way out if they got into any trouble. Well, if they had started—the Pakistani army is a professional army, very committed, committed to the defense of the country, the sovereignty of the country. If they had been caught there and tried to shoot their way out, they wouldn’t have been left alone. The American forces next door would have come in in a massive force, and, you know, we might have been involved in a nuclear war. I mean, it was quite possible. That was part of the threat.

But there was something else that happened. Actually, it’s been reported recently, I think in Scientific American. But it was no—I mean, the way that they identified bin Laden was through a fraudulent vaccination campaign. They had doctors posing to do a anti-polio vaccination in a poor area of this town. Well, they pretty soon figured out it’s not the poor area, it’s the rich area, so they stopped the program in the middle, which is criminal in itself. Actually, running the program was criminal. You know, using a vaccination program and doctors to try to apprehend a suspect, I mean, that violates principles going back to the Hippocratic Oath. But then they stopped it in the middle, because they thought they were in the wrong area. More crimes. Then they finally identified him. But one consequence of their actions was to—there is always in these societies serious concern about what outsiders, Americans, are up to when they come in and start, you know, sticking needles in people and so on. It’s always there. Takes a lot of work to overcome that hostility. And it was being overcome in Pakistan. Now it’s gone. They will not permit people to come in carrying out vaccinations. Polio is almost gone in the world. Pakistan is one of the last places where it survives. OK, we’re encouraging the spread of polio. And as one commentator pointed out—back to the Yemeni in the Senate—one of these days, people are going to look at this crippled child and say, "You did it to us." And you can guess what’s going to happen then.

AMYGOODMAN: If you missed that testimony in the Senate, in the first-ever Senate drone hearings of this young Yemeni activist and freelance journalist, you can go to democracynow.org, because last Wednesday we played it in full. And you can watch him and also read the transcript. But, Noam, I wanted to ask you to follow up on Jeremy’s opening point around the killing—and closing point—the killing of Americans versus people anywhere.

NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, Jeremy’s point is exactly right. And the murder of Awlaki—and we should be honest about it—was—you take a look at The New York Times the next day. There was a headline which said something like, "West Celebrates Death of Radical Cleric." You know, good, we murdered a radical cleric. Then, concerns began to mount over the fact that he was an American. You know, bit of a problem if we go around killing Americans. And that’s pretty scandalous. I’ll just reiterate what Jeremy said. It doesn’t matter whether they’re Americans or whatever they are; they’re people. Going back to Magna Carta, the concept of people free of these—should be free of state terror, has been expanded over the years, substantially. And it should be expanded to include people. They should be free of state terror.

And I should say that I, myself, am kind of hesitant about some of the things I do myself. Right now I’m a plaintiff in a suit on the—against the NDAA, at least the NDAA proposals, Obama’s latest. The National Defense Authorization Act included—includes provisions which make it—which—optional for the government, if it chooses, to place American citizens under indefinite detention in military prisons, which is an incredible crime. You know, again, back to Magna Carta, much worse. And Chris Hedges organized a suit to try to oppose this, and I signed on, but with reservations, because what difference does it make if they’re American citizens? I mean, the same NDAA act authorized—in fact, makes it mandatory in some circumstances—for the government to place non-Americans under indefinite preventive detention. Should be—that’s what we should be—that’s what we should be concerned with.

This suit, incidentally, has taken an interesting course. Obama originally had said that he was opposed to those provisions in the act, but he would sign them. Then, when the case went to court, at the lower court level, the government case—the plaintiffs won. The judge threw out the government prosecution, on the—because the prosecution refused to answer a simple question: Will these plaintiffs be subject to administrative detention? Could they be? And they refused to answer that, so the judge threw that out. Obama immediately took it to the higher court. That shows you how much opposed he is to it. It will work its way to the Supreme Court. And given the Supreme Court, the government will probably win. Well, you know, these are things we should really be concerned about.

It’s not—if you want to know what—I’m sure you all know, but if you really want to know in detail what happens to non-citizens, read some of the testimonies. So, for example, there’s a recent book that came out by an Australian—David Hill, I think his name is. Very much worth reading. He’s a young man who was hiking around somewhere in northern Afghanistan. He was picked—

AMYGOODMAN: David Hicks.

NOAMCHOMSKY: Hmm?

AMYGOODMAN: David Hicks.

NOAMCHOMSKY: David Hicks, yeah. He was picked up by the Northern Alliance, the U.S. allies. They sold him for bounty to the American forces. And then he describes his years in Bagram and then at Guantánamo, and it was six or seven years. The torture, the sadism, the cruelty are just indescribable. These are American soldiers, you know, elite American soldiers. You just really have to read that to—I mean, if anybody knows American history, it won’t surprise you that much, but it’s right in front of our eyes.

And he said something quite interesting in his testimony, which I was struck by. He says the soldiers—of course, these guys were shackled, bound, you know, couldn’t move, surrounded by all kinds of military police and so on. But he said the guards were afraid of the prisoners. He said the guards had been so brainwashed by whatever training they went through, that they thought these prisoners were superhuman. He said that guards would come to his cell sometimes, where he’s shackled and, you know, so on, and ask him to perform some of his feats, like, you know, climb on the ceilings. "Will you show us how you do it?" And this kind of thing. And, in fact, when they took them out to be interrogated, they’d have like a platoon of marines around them to make sure that they didn’t carry out some incredibly monstrous act that these soldiers had probably seen in a video movie somewhere. But he said they really were terrified of the prisoners.

And that tells us something else about our own society, that what are we doing to our own society when we’re creating such terror and fear among ordinary people? I mean, it’s kind of like having guns in—you know, armed policemen in schools. Is that what you want your children to see, that we live in a society where you have to have people with guns around to protect you from some unimaginable danger? And here, there’s another serious—as far as American culture is concerned, something very much to be concerned about. This is a very frightened society, always has been—goes back to colonial times. Very striking. Today it is taking a remarkable form. If you look at the—you know, the gun culture, the people who are pressing for having guns are terrified. A lot of them are simply terrified. They’re like these guards standing outside the prison. What are they terrified of? You’ve got to have guns to protect theirselves from who? The federal government, the United Nations, aliens, whoever it may be. We don’t know what horrible force is coming after us, but we have to have guns to protect ourselves. I mean, put aside the fact the guns wouldn’t do you any good and you’ll probably kill each other, but the fear throughout the society is simply incredible.

AMYGOODMAN: Jeremy?

JEREMYSCAHILL: Just a couple of things in response to that. I was remembering, when you were talking about David Hicks’ story, this case that I came across in Yemen of a journalist named Abdulelah Haider Shaye. When President Obama first authorized the bombing of Yemen was in December of 2009. The first strike that we know of authorized under the Obama administration was on December 17th, 2009, in Yemen. There hadn’t been a bombing, a U.S. bombing, there, that we know of, since November of 2002. The first drone strike, actually, that was conducted outside of Afghanistan was in Yemen in 2002, and it killed a number of people, including a U.S. citizen named Kemal Derwish. And he actually was not—was not supposedly the target of that strike, but they claimed that he had ties to a terror cell called the Lackawanna Six, which, like many of the plots we’ve seen lately, seemed to have been the—in large part, the FBI breaking up its own plot, and which is really scandalous if you look at how many times this has happened and all these cases of entrapment.

But so, President Obama starts—decides to start bombing Yemen in December of 2009. They do this strike on what they are told by the Yemeni government and by U.S. intelligence is an al-Qaeda training camp and that there is this notorious al-Qaeda figure who’s known to be in the camp. Well, it turned out that this guy, when we investigated it and went to Yemen and spoke to people that knew him and knew the infrastructure of AQAP, that he was an old jihadist who had fought in the mujahideen war in Afghanistan and had a very peripheral connection to al-Qaeda. So it seems like what happened is that, you know, the U.S. outsources a lot of its intelligence gathering in Yemen to notoriously corrupt Yemeni officials and agencies and to the Saudis, and the Saudis have their own war that they’re waging inside of Yemen. The U.S.-backed dictatorship of Ali Abdullah Saleh was playing multiple sides—playing the Saudis, playing the U.S., playing various tribes inside the country. There were several occasions when Saleh fed the U.S. intelligence saying someone was al-Qaeda, and it turned out to being a political opponent of the regime that was being killed or assassinated by the U.S. on behalf, in the service of the dictator of Yemen.

And so, in this case, on December 17th, 2009, they bomb this village, supposedly to kill this one guy, who does not seem to have been anything even vaguely resembling a senior al-Qaeda figure in the country. And after the missile strike happens, the Yemeni government puts out a press release taking credit for the strike, saying it had conducted these air strikes. And the Obama administration congratulated the Yemeni government on taking the fight to the terrorists in Yemen.

A number of tribal leaders in Yemen got phone calls from this small, poor Bedouin village called al-Majalah that these missiles had slammed into the area and had shredded people into meat. And these tribal leaders went there, and also a young—this young journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, who had done reporting and work for The Washington Post, for ABC News, for Al Jazeera. He was a very, very well-known journalist in Yemen. And he was known because he was a brave guy who would go and actually interview al-Qaeda figures. Much of what the United States knows about certain leaders in al-Qaeda comes from the reporting of Abdulelah Haider Shaye. You could look at one way and say he was a very valuable guy to have out talking to these people, because it helped the U.S. intelligence officials understand or operatives understand who it was they were supposedly trying to kill. But that’s for a different story.

So this guy goes there. These tribal leaders go there. And they take photographs of the missile parts. And they then show them, broadcast them on Al Jazeera and other outlets, and share them with Amnesty International. And Amnesty International has a weapons expert come in and analyze them, and they determined that they were—that it was a cruise missile attack. And when Rick and I were in Abyan province, we had the parts filmed. They’re still there in the desert, by the way. You can go—if you want to try to go to al-Majalah, you can go there, and they’re still in the middle of the desert, with "General Dynamics" and "Made in the U.S.A." right there, visible, and we show this in our film. We show the aftermath of this bombing and the missile parts that were still there, you know, well after the bombs had dropped.

But the U.S. also—but the other bombs that they found there were cluster bombs, which of course are banned under international conventions. And the cluster bombs are basically—I saw the effect of them when the U.S. was using them in the Kosovo War in 1999. I went to the Nis marketplace after it was bombed in Serbia and saw the aftermath of it. They’re like flying land mines, and they shred everything in its path into meat and limbs. And it is horrifying to see the aftermath of any bombing, but cluster bombs are a particularly brutal weapon. And there were unexploded cluster bombs that were left there, and after the bombing had taken place, some children were playing near a cluster bomb and picked one of them up, and it blew them to pieces, two days after the bombing had happened.

So they take these pictures. They send them to Amnesty International. And these sheikhs, tribal sheikhs, organized a gathering to say that this is not the Yemeni government that did this, because Yemen doesn’t have these missiles. Amnesty does an analysis of them and determines that they were in fact U.S. weapons and that only the United States could have been responsible for that bombing.

And so, this sort of scandal was brewing inside of Yemen because the people who were killed there—there were at least 46 people killed. Fourteen of the people killed were women, and 21 were children. When the Yemeni Parliament, which is a—which is supported by the United States, went to investigate it, they listed all of the dead—their ages, their names, their genders—and I got a copy of that report and have the list of every single person that we know of that was killed in that strike. And we added it up, and it was 14 women and 21 children among the 46 dead, and in the pursuit of trying to kill this one person who the president of the United States had been told was this high-value target, who everyone in Yemen says was an older mujahideen who had primarily done his jihad in Afghanistan and not inside of Yemen.

When this started to become public, this Yemeni journalist was going on Al Jazeera and was helping other U.S. media outlets report that story, that it was in fact a U.S. strike. U.S. officials were denying it, and eventually then anonymously said, "Yes, we were behind the strike," but General David Petraeus said that no civilians were actually killed in the strike and that it’s all a big exaggeration, which was very offensive to Yemenis of all political stripes. And so, it was an enduring scandal.

And this one journalist was really pushing this story, and he continued to report on other—on the expanding U.S. air war in Yemen. And one night, in the middle of the night, he was—in the middle of the day, he was out with a friend of his who was a political cartoonist, and they were shopping, and he was snatched by U.S.-backed, U.S.-trained counterterrorism forces in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, and was taken to the political security prison and was beaten bloody by the security services and told that he was to stop talking about the missile strikes. And then they released him onto the streets. And what this journalist did was to go straight to Al Jazeera and say, "I was just beaten by the political security officers, and they’re trying to stop me from talking about the U.S. missile strikes that are happening in the country."

And soon after he did that, his house was raided by the CTU, the counterterrorism unit, which is a JSOC- and CIA-trained entity. And they snatched him out of his home and disappeared him for 30 days. And no one knew where he was. And then they hauled him into a court that had been specifically set up by the dictatorship to prosecute journalists for crimes against the state, and was ultimately convicted of being an al-Qaeda facilitator, because he facilitated al-Qaeda members being able to speak to the media, and which—I’ve talked to people in U.S. intelligence who actually also believe that this case is outrageous, because they said, "You took off the streets one of the best reporters that we would read so we could actually understand what was going on in Yemen, because of the notorious corruption of all of the informants."

So he is put into this prison. He’s put on trial, total sham trial. His lawyers refuse to present a defense. No lawyer would represent him, at his own request, because he said, "I don’t want to recognize a shred of legitimacy of this process." And we have video of him when he is in prison. They bring him in front of the—into the courtroom in a cell. They have him in a cage in a cell. And as they’re pulling him away, he said, "My crime is exposing the American missile attack on the tiny Bedouin village of al-Majalah in Abyan province. They’re putting me in jail because I exposed their cruise missile attack." And he said, "This is what happens when Yemeni journalists are real journalists," and they pull him away, and they disappear him into this prison.

There was so much outrage in Yemen, from his tribe and from human rights organizations and from mainstream civil society in Yemen, that the dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had no choice but to issue a pardon against Abdulelah Haider Shaye. This happens a lot in Yemen. Someone gets arrests, the tribes protest, and then the person is released. It’s a whole—it’s a game that’s been playing out in that country for a long time. So, he’s going to issue a pardon, and the official news service, the Saba News Agency, does a report saying that this journalist is going to be pardoned.

That day, the dictator of Yemen receives a phone call from the White House—not from some liaison, not from secretary of state—from President Obama himself, personally. And President Obama tells the dictator of Yemen that he’s deeply concerned about news that Abdulelah Haider Shaye is going to be released. And the pardon is torn up. And lest you think I’m making this up or I’ve just heard it secondhand, I know this because the White House put it on their own website in a read-out of the phone call from that day. And when I called the State Department to ask them — this is a year-and-a-half after Abdulelah Haider had been in prison since this phone call — "What is the U.S. State Department’s position on Abdulelah Haider Shaye?" they said, "Our position remains the same as that articulated by President Obama in that phone call. We believe he should be kept in prison." So this journalist is in prison because of the president of the United States making a phone call and having his pardon ripped up.

And he is not doing well in prison. I’m in touch with his family. He is—my understanding is that he’s losing—he’s starting to lose his mind, which is very common with people that are kept in solitary confinement or in these conditions.

And none of news organizations that worked with him in the U.S.—ABC News, Washington Post and—none of them have said anything about his case. Where are they? When he’s getting them sensationalist footage, when he interviewed Anwar al-Awlaki, they all wanted to broadcast his comments about Nidal Hasan, you know, who conducted the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. And they wanted to ask—they wanted to know what Awlaki said about the underwear bomber. You know why we know what Awlaki thought about that? Because Abdulelah Haider Shaye found him, interviewed him and published it in The Washington Post, on NBC. And yet, when he’s in prison, they say nothing. It’s shameful. It’s shameful.

And that’s often what happens in these cases. Journalists—journalists, like myself and others, we go into these countries. And, you know, I encourage people to read the acknowledgments in my book, because I tell you—I name the names of all of the journalists in Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world who made it possible for this story to be told. And they’re the real heroes of this. Unfamous journalists, who report oftentimes not in English, take the great risks. People like me, I go in, and I can go somewhere for a few weeks or a month, and I depend on them to be able to tell these stories. And so, when something happens to one of our colleagues—Somalia, journalists are being gunned down in record numbers; in Yemen, journalists are being thrown in prison—if we don’t speak up when we have a platform and defend our colleagues, we should be ashamed of ourselves, and we should be ashamed to call ourselves journalists.

AMYGOODMAN: Noam, as we wrap up, this is the week that the Bush library is being opened in Dallas, where there is an evaluation, a reevaluation going on of his record. It’s the 10th anniversary of the War in Iraq. And today we’re talking about the years of the Obama administration. Can you talk about President Obama’s record?

NOAMCHOMSKY: Well, let me tell you what I felt, and maybe some of the rest of you felt, when I saw the pictures of the Bush library presentation. There was a group of men standing there, former presidents, the ones that are alive. Every one of them is a major criminal. A major criminal. Obama is continuing the grand tradition—shouldn’t be a great surprise. And I guess the sentence that came to my mind at the time is actually from Thomas Jefferson, who said once that—he said, "I tremble for my country when I think that God is just, and some day will bring us to his judgment." Well, if we can’t them to some kind of judgment either, if not in the courts, at least in public opinion, then it’s kind of like what Jeremy said: We’re not doing are duty just as responsible people.

AMYGOODMAN: And let—Jeremy, we’re going to end with you. This is your second major book. Your first book was Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, where you really reframed—you reframed the whole discussion about mercenaries and the privatization of the U.S. military. Suffice it to say, here we are, what, six years later, and Erik Prince had to move, the founder of Blackwater, to Abu Dhabi, and you remain here in the United States. Less—and I wanted to ask, with this second book—and Jeremy is going to be signing afterwards, and I encourage everyone to get this book, not just for interesting summer reading, but that we can see a spring and a summer of U.S. foreign policy. When we are informed, what a difference it makes to begin with those tools, to be empowered, to challenge what we—how we are represented in the rest of the world. But I want to ask you, Jeremy, finally—your new book is called Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield. What are you hoping to accomplish with this book? And why you even call it Dirty Wars?

JEREMYSCAHILL: One thing that I think you’ll notice if you read the book—you know, I’ve talked to friends about the—you know, when I wrote Blackwater. I think I’ve grown up a lot since I wrote that book, in a sense, because something really strange happened to me after I wrote Blackwater, and that was that I started to get emails and other electronic communications from people that had served in special operations forces or worked with the CIA—not senior officials. I don’t hobnob with the powerful ever. In fact, when I was talking about this official who told me what he said about the killing of Abdulrahman, I had to chase him around the campus of a university I found him on, and, you know, he did not want to speak to me. I had to sort of chase him. That’s pretty much the only interaction I have with powerful officials is chasing them somewhere.

But I started to get communications from operators and people that were doing these operations. And there was a sort of a pattern to them early on, and sometimes they would come to events and come up to me afterwards. And they would say, you know, "I don’t"—a lot of them would say, "I don’t care very much for your politics, but you were totally right about Blackwater. You know, I can’t stand them." And I got to know people in that world, in that community, because they also were—had problems with Blackwater and didn’t like various actions or problems that the company’s actions had caused for their units or the fact that they were getting paid so much more than the conventional soldiers—whatever it was. But I started a dialogue with some of these people that continues to this day, and I’ve learned a tremendous amount from them about how these operations run.

And what I tried to do in the book—I mean, I hope I succeeded, to a degree, with it—is to weave in and out of stories that show the complicated landscape of the killing fields and the men who do the operations on the ground, the figures who are identified as the targets, the civilians that are forced to live on the other side of the barrel of the gun or in the place where the bombs are going off, and to put it in a historical context.

I think if you had asked me years ago what I think—you know, what I wanted to accomplish or what I think should be done, I would have pretended to have an answer, because I think it’s—I was, you know—I was bull-headed.

I think that we, unfortunately, are only at the very beginning of a conversation that we have to—that’s urgent and that we have to have in this country about how far we, as a society, have let things go since 9/11 in the name of protecting our security. And I concur very much with what Noam said about being gripped by fear. You know, fear is a very powerful force. And if you don’t figure out a way to confront it and not be owned by it, then things like the PATRIOT Act happen, and civil liberties get rolled back. And, you know, people say, "Oh, NDAA, the people that are whining about that are crazy, and it’s conspiracy theory," and all of these things. And you just have—just study history. It starts somewhere. It starts with an idea, and then a crisis happens, and they implement the idea that’s been laying around. You know, it’s a very age-old concept.

And my hope is that people use the book as actionable intelligence, which is actually an—you know, a term in the CIA or in the targeting business. But I want it to be actionable intelligence to work toward a democratic process of confronting our own fear and also holding those in power accountable, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans. I think all of us should be defined not by the public pronouncements of politicians, but by what we do in response to the actions they’re doing in our name. And that’s the spirit I wrote this book in.

]]>
Thu, 23 May 2013 18:13:00 -0400Video: Jeremy Scahill & Noam Chomsky on Secret U.S. Dirty Wars From Yemen to Pakistan to Laos Update: See Jeremy Scahill speak this Friday in New York City at 7pm in the Tishman Auditorium at The New School. Click here for full event details.
Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill and author Noam Chomsky recently sat down together at Harvard University to discuss Scahill’s groundbreaking new book, &quot;Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield.&quot; Amy Goodman hosted the discussion, which was sponsored by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and the ACLU of Massachusetts.
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN : What an honor it is to be here with Jeremy Scahill and Noam Chomsky. And I wanted to start with Noam responding Jeremy&#8217;s investigations and the description, putting it in the context of the history of U.S. foreign policy.
NOAM CHOMSKY : I had received an email this morning from a person who I&#8217;m sure many of you know about. It&#8217;s Fred Branfman. He&#8217;s a counterpart of Jeremy from back in the &#39;60s. He&#39;s the person who worked for years, with enormous courage and effort, to try to expose what were called the &quot;secret wars.&quot; The secret wars were perfectly public wars which the media were keeping secret, government. And Fred—this was in Laos—was—he finally did succeed in breaking through, and a tremendous exposure of huge wars that were going on—a war in northern Laos attacking a peasant society that was so remote from what was happening in the Indochina wars that many of them probably didn&#8217;t even know they were in Laos. Actually, with Fred, I met many of them in refugee camps after a CIA mercenary army drove them out from areas where they had been hiding in caves for two years under intense bombardment. He then proceeded to help expose the even worse wars in Cambodia and then the air wars, in general. Anyway, background.
One thing he pointed—what he pointed—he&#8217;s a great admirer of Jeremy&#8217;s, I should say, for very good reasons, which you&#8217;ve just heard and, I hope, will read and see. But Fred made an interesting point. He reminded me of a comment by a high American official back in 1968, who Fred was trying to get to speak. It&#8217;s not easy to get these people to speak, but he did. And this official—he was asking him, &quot;Why is this intensive bombing going on of northern Laos?&quot; Nothing to do with the war in Indochina, just destruction of a poor peasant society, one of the most malevolent acts of modern history, I think. And he finally—the official finally explained. He said, &quot;Look, there&#8217;s a temporary bombing of North—a cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam, and we have all these planes, and we don&#8217;t have anything to do with them. So we&#8217;ll bomb Laos.&quot;
OK, I think that&#8217;s the lesson of history that we should bare in mind in reading Jeremy&#8217;s exposures of, first, Blackwater and the mercenary army, and now JSOC , the so-called secret army—secret the same way the secret wars were secret. If you have a reporter who&#8217;s willing to—that has the courage and integrity to expose it, you can expose it. These resources are there. They&#8217;re growing. They have a self-generating capacity. They&#8217;re going to get larger and larger. They&#8217;re going to want more and more to do. And if one target disappears, they&#8217;ll be turned somewhere else. And as Jeremy hinted, they&#8217;ll be turned here.
And there&#8217;s a history of that, too. If some of you want to read about it, there&#8217;s a very important book by a historian, very good historian, Al McCoy, who, among other things, studied the history of drugs and torture and so on. But he&#8217;s a Philippine historian mainly, and he did a study of the Philippine War, the U.S. counterinsurgency war in the Philippines in the—over a century ago. It was a brutal, murderous war, hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, a horror story. And he pointed out that, at the time, after the war was over, when the so-called pacification began, the U.S. forces were—the Marines, mostly, in those days—were using the highest technology available to develop a surveillance system over the Philippine society, so they could do what—what, by our standards now, at a primitive level, the kinds of things that Jeremy described. And they did. And it&#8217;s turned the Philippines into a—this is the Philippines a hundred years later, have never escaped from this. Philippine society is permeated by the consequences of this long terror war.
But McCoy pointed out something else. He pointed out that these measures, from before the First World War, were very quickly picked up domestically, both by the British and the United States, and applied to surveillance and control techniques within their own societies—the FBI here and so on. And now that&#8217;s what we can expect, and signs of it are already around. The resources are there. They&#8217;re self-generating. They&#8217;re kept under a veil, so not too much inspection of them, though there could be, as you&#8217;ve seen. They&#8217;re going to grow. They&#8217;re going to develop. If the current targets disappear, they&#8217;ll move on to new targets, because that&#8217;s the nature of these systems, just like the planes who had nowhere to bomb so they decided to send them to bomb northern Laos. And they&#8217;ll come home. Already happening. And we can expect more and more of it. I think that&#8217;s the historical background that should very much be kept in mind.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL : [inaudible] Sorry. You know, there was a—there was a time when Amy and I, I think we were in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we were—I&#8217;m from Milwaukee, but we were doing Democracy Now! , the show, from there, and Amy had been on a speaking tour going all around the country and had given probably, you know, 200 speeches in like 199 days or something. I mean, it was this incredible tour that she was on. And in the middle of a show, she lost her voice in—I mean, had some coughing and then lost her voice. And it was this moment on the air no one knew what to do, because this—the voice we all listen to all the time all of a sudden like went sort of dead on the air. And I think there was a congresswoman or someone on the show, who was left to kind of deal with it. And Amy&#8217;s like going like this, like—and she&#8217;s not—she&#8217;s just meaning, like, &quot;Let&#8217;s go to break.&quot; But anyway, so, I think it&#8217;s a product of as much great speaking as you do.
One thing, though, in response to this, you know, I think that one thing that&#8217;s important to keep in mind is that very little of what this administration or the Bush administration did was actually new ideas. They were old, existing ideas and resurrections of certain plans and programs. I mean, if you look at the Phoenix program in Vietnam, which was this assassination program that was being run in Vietnam, there are very serious parallels to what the United States was doing in Iraq.
You know, the dominant historical narrative is that the surge won the Iraq War. And General Petraeus, had he not gone down for—you know, the only thing that seems to be capable of taking down the powerful is these sort of—you know, what they do in their top-secret chambers. They can wage all the so-called secret wars they want, but if they do something in their own secret life, then, you know—then you can bring them down. But Petraeus is often celebrated as this sort of hero who won the Iraq War because of the surge. But in reality, you had this merciless killing campaign that was being run by General Stanley McChrystal and Admiral William McRaven, where they were just bumping off the leadership of any cell that would pop off—pop up, but also just killing a tremendous number of people, in general.
And so, you had military figures that grew up in a certain era with an understanding of these programs. And when Cheney and Rumsfeld came into power with Bush, they really saw—but even before 9/11 happened, saw the historical moment that they had in front of them to sort of redraw maps and implement a vision of the world where Iran-Contra was a noble act and sort of the model for how the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy. I don&#8217;t know if you—if many of you know this, but Cheney was in Congress at the time that Iran-Contra was being investigated, and he authored the minority report in the House defending Iran-Contra and viewed it as a sort of heroic, necessary action. And they had this view of the unitary executive, the idea that when it comes to these national security issues, that the White House is essentially a dictatorship and that Congress&#8217;s only function is to fund the operations but not be involved with overseeing them or having any meaningful oversight of these operations.
And President Obama really had an opportunity to roll back some of the executive branch power grabs that Bush and Cheney had engaged in. And instead, he sort of doubled down on them and has been waging this unprecedented war against whistleblowers and using the Espionage Act and reserving the right of the state to keep secret from the American people evidence that would indicate why someone was being assassinated, to keep secret—to use the state secrets privilege in repeated lawsuits brought against former officials or torturers, having cases thrown out of court, using the full power structure of the executive branch in the same excessive way that was being used under Bush and Cheney.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy, you were talking about U.S. officials. Can you talk about McRaven and Gardez?
JEREMY SCAHILL : Well, that&#8217;s a—yeah, that&#8217;s a—so, one of the stories in the book, and also you&#8217;ll see this in our film, one of the characters in our film is Admiral William McRaven, who is, I think, one of the most powerful military figures in modern U.S. history. McRaven is the current commander of SOCOM , the Special Operations Command, in charge of all special operations activity across the globe in more than a hundred countries. But McRaven was actually an original member of SEAL Team 6, the Naval Warfare Development Group—DEVGRU, it&#8217;s called now. He was an original member of SEAL Team 6 and spent much of his career in the shadows of covert and clandestine U.S. military operations. And he would have been forward-deployed to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, but he had injured his back in a parachuting accident at a training exercise in California, where there was a—where his SEAL team was based at the time.
And so, instead of forward-deploying to Afghanistan, Admiral McRaven was tapped by General Wayne Downing, who was coming up with the—with the process for putting people on these kill lists after 9/11 and trying to take down all of the leadership of al-Qaeda or anyone that they could attach to the 9/11 attacks. And Downing asked Admiral McRaven to come and advise the National Security Council. People think of the National Security Council as this huge body. It&#8217;s the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, and then staffers. But it really is just the core officials who dictate this policy. So, if the NSC is making decisions about targeted killing, it&#8217;s really the principals that are doing national defense, national security, counterterrorism.
So McRaven became the adviser to the most powerful officials in the U.S. government in developing how to implement the hunting down and killing of Osama bin Laden and others. And at the beginning, there were, by some estimates, between seven and two dozen individuals that were put on this list for—in the beginning it was kill or capture, but the emphasis was often on kill. And McRaven saw firsthand how the White House worked, and he learned a great deal about the politics of an administration, because he was there helping to craft a policy that he would later then run when he became the head of all special operations forces.
So, McRaven is there for a couple of years, and then ends up going to Iraq, where he was the deputy commander of the Joint Special Operations Command under Stanley McChrystal, who was very close to Dick Cheney. Cheney had gotten him a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations. And McChrystal was the commander of JSOC for much of the Bush administration. McRaven is working under McChrystal, running the kill campaign in Iraq and coordinating all of these actions against against both the—what was called al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and also going after Muqtada al-Sadr&#8217;s forces and others. So he sort of understood both ends of the game: how it was run in the White House and then how it was implemented in the field.
And when President Obama came into office, the two people who were responsible for the most covert, sensitive operations, being run by primarily Cheney and Rumsfeld, outside of the chain of command, were General McChrystal and Admiral McRaven. And they became the two most influential figures in shaping the Obama administration&#8217;s counterterroism policy. And, so, President Obama really empowered those forces and actually had McRaven in the White House helping to shape the policy—not just implement the military actions, but actually shaping policy. And most people had never heard of Admiral McRaven. And, of course, he&#8217;s now a kind of iconic figure because he commanded the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. And, of course, Disney tried to trademark SEAL Team 6 after the bin Laden raid—it&#8217;s a true story.
But what I—the way that I discovered the identity of Admiral McRaven was, in February of 2010, there was a raid in Gardez in Afghanistan, in Paktia province. And a U.S. special operations team had intelligence that there was a Taliban compound and that people living in a particular compound in this area were members of the Taliban who were plotting attacks against American forces. And they raid this compound in the middle of the night, and they end up killing a number of men and two pregnant women. And it turned out that this was not a Taliban family. In fact, they weren&#8217;t even ethnic Pashtun; they were from a minority ethnic group in the province. And the man of the house was a senior Afghan police commander who had been trained by the U.S. forces. And his family showed me his documents. He had actually been trained by a private security company called MPRI , which is made up of very—of high-ranking former military officials, intelligence officials and others. And so, these women were killed, this Afghan police commander who had fought with U.S. soldiers against the Taliban and against the Haqqani network in his province, and whose house was filled with pictures of him and U.S. soldiers smiling in these pictures, had just been killed.
And when the commandos that—the U.S. commandos that raided the house realized that they had killed these women and that the men that they had killed were not in fact Taliban, and that what they were doing that night was the most anti-Taliban of things they could have been doing, which was to be having a party with live music celebrating the naming of a child—the men were dancing and playing instruments, and it was this loud, boisterous party, and we have their cellphone video from that night. So, they raid this house; these people are killed. Instead of saying, &quot;Wow! We really messed up,&quot; and owning it—and that stuff happens every day in Afghanistan. People are getting killed all the time that have no attachment whatsoever to the Taliban or al-Qaeda or the Haqqani network, and the U.S. will often just pay them a little bit of money and move on, and it never makes it into the papers. That wouldn&#8217;t have been out of place. But instead of doing that, they dug the bullets out of the women&#8217;s bodies, and then they told their commanders that what had happened in the compound that night was a Taliban ambush of this family and that they had come upon these women who had been killed by the Taliban. And then they—there were leaks saying that, well, no, this was actually an honor killing, and the women were killed by their own family members. And they put out a press release, and spokespeople made these statements saying that this—that the U.S. soldiers were essentially heroes that had gone in there and saved everyone else.
But then, the family members, because they were a prominent family—one of the fathers of the women was the vice dean at Gardez University, who spoke fluent English, started calling reporters and telling people, you know, this is not what the—what NATO is saying. Then a very great reporter named Jerome Starkey actually went down there — he writes for The Times of London — and interviewed the family members and did a story saying that this was a NATO raid—he didn&#8217;t know it was JSOC at the time—that this was a botched NATO raid and that NATO had tried to cover it up. And he told the story of these families. And when Jerome Starkey did this, NATO did something extraordinary: They named him in a press release and said, &quot;Jerome Starkey of The Times of London is lying.&quot; They actually accused him of lying. And, I mean, that could have ended Starkey&#8217;s career. And Starkey, to his credit, kept pushing and pushing, and ended up doing a number of stories and got close to that family. And Rick and I also went to this family and filmed with them, and you see this in our video, and tell this story and tell the story of what happened to Jerome Starkey, as well.
So, media attention is focused in now on this village and this one family&#8217;s compound. And eventually NATO calls up Starkey, and they said, &quot;We&#8217;re about to put out a press release. We&#8217;re going to change our version of events.&quot; And they admit that their forces had killed, that NATO forces had killed these pregnant women and that the men were not Taliban commanders. So, the family told me and told Jerome Starkey the same thing, which is that they got a call, and a person they believed was General Stanley McChrystal was going to be coming to visit them. And at the time, McChrystal was the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. And they actually were plotting—they wanted to kill General McChrystal. They wanted to stab him to death when he came into their home. And one—and one of the men told me that &quot;When they did this to my family, I wanted to put on a suicide vest and blow myself up among the Americans.&quot; Remember, these were U.S. allies, and now they&#8217;re saying, &quot;I want a suicide vest, and I want to kill General McChrystal,&quot; who was the leader of the war. And an imam at their local mosque said, &quot;No, you&#8217;re not to do that. You&#8217;re to give him hospitality, like our people do, and you&#8217;ll welcome him into your home and hear what he has to say.&quot;
So they thought that General McChrystal was coming to see them. They called Jerome Starkey. Starkey goes down there with his photographer, Jeremy Kelly, and they&#8217;re waiting with the family, thinking that McChrystal is going to show up. And up pulls this convoy of vehicles with countless Afghan military officials and some Americans interspersed with them. And in the center of this crowd is a guy with a name tag that says &quot;McRaven&quot; on it and has three stars on the lapel. And they&#8217;ve brought with them two sheep. And they approach the compound in the very place where the women had been killed and this police commander had been killed, and they offload these sheep, and they put a knife up to the sheep&#8217;s neck, and they were going to sacrifice the sheep. And what they were doing was a ritual from these people&#8217;s culture, the people who were the victims of this. And they were—it was like a forgiveness ritual. So they were coming—Admiral McRaven shows up with some sheep, after this family had been gunned down and then they—and they had blamed it on the family and then said it was Taliban, and that—
So, this is unfolding. This photographer, Jeremy Kelly, starts taking photos of—he didn&#8217;t know who he was at the time—of Admiral McRaven. And at the time, Admiral McRaven was the commander of the most elite, secretive U.S. military force. And he shows up with the sheep in Gardez, Afghanistan, and they&#8217;re offering to sacrifice it. And the American and Afghan forces try to stop the photographer. They try to hit the camera away. They say that Starkey and Jeremy Kelly are not allowed in. But the family—and it was so smart of them—the family said, &quot;No, we want him here as a witness, so that someone independent is here to know what goes on today.&quot; And so they have photos, and Starkey took, in shorthand, all the notes of what McRaven said in the room that day. And McRaven admitted to the head of this household that it was his forces that had killed these pregnant women and the Afghan police commander. And he apologized.
And then there were all these stories that went out on ABC News and others that the head of the household had accepted the apology. When I spoke to him, he said, &quot;I don&#8217;t accept their apology at all.&quot; He said, &quot;The special forces did cruel things to us. They beat us. They ruined our life. They wiped out our economy in our compound by taking away all of these people. And they killed our pregnant women. I wouldn&#8217;t trade my two sons for the entire kingdom of the United States,&quot; is what he said. And another man chimed in, and he said, &quot;These are these commandos with beards. We call them the American Taliban.&quot; And this is an anti-Taliban family.
And so, you know, when I watched the bin Laden raid coverage, and people started saying JSOC publicly, and we were showed that the dog was named Cairo and was a French—Belgian Malinois, or whatever, and then we know what guns were used. And, you know, Rick and I talk about this all the time. We know every detail that was leaked—and, of course, a lot of it turned out to be not true, but that&#8217;s for a different story. I was thinking, where was the coverage of—like, wall-to-wall coverage of this operation that they did? Because that would give us a little bit more of a balanced picture of what happens in the thousands of night raids that happen every year in Afghanistan or in Pakistan or in countries that we&#8217;re not even aware we&#8217;re raiding right now. And so, that story, for me, really resonated strongly, because I think we only have a tiny fraction of understanding the extent of the kinds of operations that are being done on a daily basis around the world, and we often hear about them when they go the way that those in power want or when the version that they want publicized is the one accepted by powerful media outlets.
AMY GOODMAN : Noam, if you could respond to what Jeremy said. And also, you have written extensively about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and I was wondering if you could comment on that.
NOAM CHOMSKY : I was saying that I&#8217;ve written plenty of unpopular articles, and one of the most unpopular had to do with the murder, not killing, of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was a suspect. There are principles, believe it or not, that are not only in the Constitution, but that go back to 800 years, to Magna Carta, the foundations of Anglo-American law. That&#8217;s—I mean, they put it in narrow terms, but the general principle, including —Jeremy is quite correct—expansion of it to people other than our own citizens, is that a person can&#8217;t be punished by the state without due process of law and a speedy trial by his peers. That&#8217;s a reasonable principle. It&#8217;s in the Constitution. It was narrow, if you look, so in the Constitution it didn&#8217;t—naturally, it didn&#8217;t apply to Native Americans, it didn&#8217;t apply to blacks, and it dubiously applied to women, who at the time were considered property, not people. But over the years, it&#8217;s been expanded. And unless it gets to the point where—that Jeremy was talking about, where it&#8217;s just human beings, we can&#8217;t call ourselves a civilized society. Anyway, those are the principles.
Osama bin Laden was a suspect. In fact, personally, I don&#8217;t have any doubt that he was responsible, but my personal opinion is nothing that stands up in a court of law. You have to have evidence. You have to have a trial, a serious trial. And it was pretty clear that the U.S. government didn&#8217;t want that. He was captured, apprehended, by, you know, the most skilled masters of war—to use the Somali warlord&#8217;s expression—that exist in the world, 80 of them, I think. He was defenseless. The first story that came out was that they had to shoot him because his wife lunged at the SEALs. And what could they do? You know, they had to kill everybody. But that story was later withdrawn. It was nothing. He was just apprehended, defenseless, murdered, body throw into the ocean, leaving obvious questions as to why. And the dangers of this operation—a lot of the aspects of this operation—so it was a criminal—in my view, just total—a complete criminal act. No justification.
But, there&#8217;s more to it than this. And I was kind of reminded of it when Jeremy talked about the Yemeni testimony at the Senate. Now, those of you might have looked at the little, tiny report on that hidden in The New York Times . He said something else, this man who testified. He said that, for years, the al-Qaeda—the Islamist radicals—al-Qaeda, they call them—had been trying to turn the people of this village against the Americans. And they didn&#8217;t succeed. But you&#8217;ve succeeded with one drone strike. You&#8217;re creating more people to kill you, as you pointed out. And the same is true of the Osama bin
Laden assassination. First of all, the action itself was extremely hazardous. The Navy SEALs who were sent in were under orders to shoot their way out if they got into any trouble. Well, if they had started—the Pakistani army is a professional army, very committed, committed to the defense of the country, the sovereignty of the country. If they had been caught there and tried to shoot their way out, they wouldn&#8217;t have been left alone. The American forces next door would have come in in a massive force, and, you know, we might have been involved in a nuclear war. I mean, it was quite possible. That was part of the threat.
But there was something else that happened. Actually, it&#8217;s been reported recently, I think in Scientific American . But it was no—I mean, the way that they identified bin Laden was through a fraudulent vaccination campaign. They had doctors posing to do a anti-polio vaccination in a poor area of this town. Well, they pretty soon figured out it&#8217;s not the poor area, it&#8217;s the rich area, so they stopped the program in the middle, which is criminal in itself. Actually, running the program was criminal. You know, using a vaccination program and doctors to try to apprehend a suspect, I mean, that violates principles going back to the Hippocratic Oath. But then they stopped it in the middle, because they thought they were in the wrong area. More crimes. Then they finally identified him. But one consequence of their actions was to—there is always in these societies serious concern about what outsiders, Americans, are up to when they come in and start, you know, sticking needles in people and so on. It&#8217;s always there. Takes a lot of work to overcome that hostility. And it was being overcome in Pakistan. Now it&#8217;s gone. They will not permit people to come in carrying out vaccinations. Polio is almost gone in the world. Pakistan is one of the last places where it survives. OK, we&#8217;re encouraging the spread of polio. And as one commentator pointed out—back to the Yemeni in the Senate—one of these days, people are going to look at this crippled child and say, &quot;You did it to us.&quot; And you can guess what&#8217;s going to happen then.
AMY GOODMAN : If you missed that testimony in the Senate, in the first-ever Senate drone hearings of this young Yemeni activist and freelance journalist, you can go to democracynow.org, because last Wednesday we played it in full. And you can watch him and also read the transcript . But, Noam, I wanted to ask you to follow up on Jeremy&#8217;s opening point around the killing—and closing point—the killing of Americans versus people anywhere.
NOAM CHOMSKY : Well, Jeremy&#8217;s point is exactly right. And the murder of Awlaki—and we should be honest about it—was—you take a look at The New York Times the next day. There was a headline which said something like, &quot;West Celebrates Death of Radical Cleric.&quot; You know, good, we murdered a radical cleric. Then, concerns began to mount over the fact that he was an American. You know, bit of a problem if we go around killing Americans. And that&#8217;s pretty scandalous. I&#8217;ll just reiterate what Jeremy said. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether they&#8217;re Americans or whatever they are; they&#8217;re people. Going back to Magna Carta, the concept of people free of these—should be free of state terror, has been expanded over the years, substantially. And it should be expanded to include people. They should be free of state terror.
And I should say that I, myself, am kind of hesitant about some of the things I do myself. Right now I&#8217;m a plaintiff in a suit on the—against the NDAA , at least the NDAA proposals, Obama&#8217;s latest. The National Defense Authorization Act included—includes provisions which make it—which—optional for the government, if it chooses, to place American citizens under indefinite detention in military prisons, which is an incredible crime. You know, again, back to Magna Carta, much worse. And Chris Hedges organized a suit to try to oppose this, and I signed on, but with reservations, because what difference does it make if they&#8217;re American citizens? I mean, the same NDAA act authorized—in fact, makes it mandatory in some circumstances—for the government to place non-Americans under indefinite preventive detention. Should be—that&#8217;s what we should be—that&#8217;s what we should be concerned with.
This suit, incidentally, has taken an interesting course. Obama originally had said that he was opposed to those provisions in the act, but he would sign them. Then, when the case went to court, at the lower court level, the government case—the plaintiffs won. The judge threw out the government prosecution, on the—because the prosecution refused to answer a simple question: Will these plaintiffs be subject to administrative detention? Could they be? And they refused to answer that, so the judge threw that out. Obama immediately took it to the higher court. That shows you how much opposed he is to it. It will work its way to the Supreme Court. And given the Supreme Court, the government will probably win. Well, you know, these are things we should really be concerned about.
It&#8217;s not—if you want to know what—I&#8217;m sure you all know, but if you really want to know in detail what happens to non-citizens, read some of the testimonies. So, for example, there&#8217;s a recent book that came out by an Australian—David Hill, I think his name is. Very much worth reading. He&#8217;s a young man who was hiking around somewhere in northern Afghanistan. He was picked—
AMY GOODMAN : David Hicks.
NOAM CHOMSKY : Hmm?
AMY GOODMAN : David Hicks.
NOAM CHOMSKY : David Hicks, yeah. He was picked up by the Northern Alliance, the U.S. allies. They sold him for bounty to the American forces. And then he describes his years in Bagram and then at Guantánamo, and it was six or seven years. The torture, the sadism, the cruelty are just indescribable. These are American soldiers, you know, elite American soldiers. You just really have to read that to—I mean, if anybody knows American history, it won&#8217;t surprise you that much, but it&#8217;s right in front of our eyes.
And he said something quite interesting in his testimony, which I was struck by. He says the soldiers—of course, these guys were shackled, bound, you know, couldn&#8217;t move, surrounded by all kinds of military police and so on. But he said the guards were afraid of the prisoners. He said the guards had been so brainwashed by whatever training they went through, that they thought these prisoners were superhuman. He said that guards would come to his cell sometimes, where he&#8217;s shackled and, you know, so on, and ask him to perform some of his feats, like, you know, climb on the ceilings. &quot;Will you show us how you do it?&quot; And this kind of thing. And, in fact, when they took them out to be interrogated, they&#8217;d have like a platoon of marines around them to make sure that they didn&#8217;t carry out some incredibly monstrous act that these soldiers had probably seen in a video movie somewhere. But he said they really were terrified of the prisoners.
And that tells us something else about our own society, that what are we doing to our own society when we&#8217;re creating such terror and fear among ordinary people? I mean, it&#8217;s kind of like having guns in—you know, armed policemen in schools. Is that what you want your children to see, that we live in a society where you have to have people with guns around to protect you from some unimaginable danger? And here, there&#8217;s another serious—as far as American culture is concerned, something very much to be concerned about. This is a very frightened society, always has been—goes back to colonial times. Very striking. Today it is taking a remarkable form. If you look at the—you know, the gun culture, the people who are pressing for having guns are terrified. A lot of them are simply terrified. They&#8217;re like these guards standing outside the prison. What are they terrified of? You&#8217;ve got to have guns to protect theirselves from who? The federal government, the United Nations, aliens, whoever it may be. We don&#8217;t know what horrible force is coming after us, but we have to have guns to protect ourselves. I mean, put aside the fact the guns wouldn&#8217;t do you any good and you&#8217;ll probably kill each other, but the fear throughout the society is simply incredible.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL : Just a couple of things in response to that. I was remembering, when you were talking about David Hicks&#8217; story, this case that I came across in Yemen of a journalist named Abdulelah Haider Shaye. When President Obama first authorized the bombing of Yemen was in December of 2009. The first strike that we know of authorized under the Obama administration was on December 17th, 2009, in Yemen. There hadn&#8217;t been a bombing, a U.S. bombing, there, that we know of, since November of 2002. The first drone strike, actually, that was conducted outside of Afghanistan was in Yemen in 2002, and it killed a number of people, including a U.S. citizen named Kemal Derwish. And he actually was not—was not supposedly the target of that strike, but they claimed that he had ties to a terror cell called the Lackawanna Six, which, like many of the plots we&#8217;ve seen lately, seemed to have been the—in large part, the FBI breaking up its own plot, and which is really scandalous if you look at how many times this has happened and all these cases of entrapment.
But so, President Obama starts—decides to start bombing Yemen in December of 2009. They do this strike on what they are told by the Yemeni government and by U.S. intelligence is an al-Qaeda training camp and that there is this notorious al-Qaeda figure who&#8217;s known to be in the camp. Well, it turned out that this guy, when we investigated it and went to Yemen and spoke to people that knew him and knew the infrastructure of AQAP , that he was an old jihadist who had fought in the mujahideen war in Afghanistan and had a very peripheral connection to al-Qaeda. So it seems like what happened is that, you know, the U.S. outsources a lot of its intelligence gathering in Yemen to notoriously corrupt Yemeni officials and agencies and to the Saudis, and the Saudis have their own war that they&#8217;re waging inside of Yemen. The U.S.-backed dictatorship of Ali Abdullah Saleh was playing multiple sides—playing the Saudis, playing the U.S., playing various tribes inside the country. There were several occasions when Saleh fed the U.S. intelligence saying someone was al-Qaeda, and it turned out to being a political opponent of the regime that was being killed or assassinated by the U.S. on behalf, in the service of the dictator of Yemen.
And so, in this case, on December 17th, 2009, they bomb this village, supposedly to kill this one guy, who does not seem to have been anything even vaguely resembling a senior al-Qaeda figure in the country. And after the missile strike happens, the Yemeni government puts out a press release taking credit for the strike, saying it had conducted these air strikes. And the Obama administration congratulated the Yemeni government on taking the fight to the terrorists in Yemen.
A number of tribal leaders in Yemen got phone calls from this small, poor Bedouin village called al-Majalah that these missiles had slammed into the area and had shredded people into meat. And these tribal leaders went there, and also a young—this young journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, who had done reporting and work for The Washington Post , for ABC News, for Al Jazeera. He was a very, very well-known journalist in Yemen. And he was known because he was a brave guy who would go and actually interview al-Qaeda figures. Much of what the United States knows about certain leaders in al-Qaeda comes from the reporting of Abdulelah Haider Shaye. You could look at one way and say he was a very valuable guy to have out talking to these people, because it helped the U.S. intelligence officials understand or operatives understand who it was they were supposedly trying to kill. But that&#8217;s for a different story.
So this guy goes there. These tribal leaders go there. And they take photographs of the missile parts. And they then show them, broadcast them on Al Jazeera and other outlets, and share them with Amnesty International. And Amnesty International has a weapons expert come in and analyze them, and they determined that they were—that it was a cruise missile attack. And when Rick and I were in Abyan province, we had the parts filmed. They&#8217;re still there in the desert, by the way. You can go—if you want to try to go to al-Majalah, you can go there, and they&#8217;re still in the middle of the desert, with &quot;General Dynamics&quot; and &quot;Made in the U.S.A.&quot; right there, visible, and we show this in our film. We show the aftermath of this bombing and the missile parts that were still there, you know, well after the bombs had dropped.
But the U.S. also—but the other bombs that they found there were cluster bombs, which of course are banned under international conventions. And the cluster bombs are basically—I saw the effect of them when the U.S. was using them in the Kosovo War in 1999. I went to the Nis marketplace after it was bombed in Serbia and saw the aftermath of it. They&#8217;re like flying land mines, and they shred everything in its path into meat and limbs. And it is horrifying to see the aftermath of any bombing, but cluster bombs are a particularly brutal weapon. And there were unexploded cluster bombs that were left there, and after the bombing had taken place, some children were playing near a cluster bomb and picked one of them up, and it blew them to pieces, two days after the bombing had happened.
So they take these pictures. They send them to Amnesty International. And these sheikhs, tribal sheikhs, organized a gathering to say that this is not the Yemeni government that did this, because Yemen doesn&#8217;t have these missiles. Amnesty does an analysis of them and determines that they were in fact U.S. weapons and that only the United States could have been responsible for that bombing.
And so, this sort of scandal was brewing inside of Yemen because the people who were killed there—there were at least 46 people killed. Fourteen of the people killed were women, and 21 were children. When the Yemeni Parliament, which is a—which is supported by the United States, went to investigate it, they listed all of the dead—their ages, their names, their genders—and I got a copy of that report and have the list of every single person that we know of that was killed in that strike. And we added it up, and it was 14 women and 21 children among the 46 dead, and in the pursuit of trying to kill this one person who the president of the United States had been told was this high-value target, who everyone in Yemen says was an older mujahideen who had primarily done his jihad in Afghanistan and not inside of Yemen.
When this started to become public, this Yemeni journalist was going on Al Jazeera and was helping other U.S. media outlets report that story, that it was in fact a U.S. strike. U.S. officials were denying it, and eventually then anonymously said, &quot;Yes, we were behind the strike,&quot; but General David Petraeus said that no civilians were actually killed in the strike and that it&#8217;s all a big exaggeration, which was very offensive to Yemenis of all political stripes. And so, it was an enduring scandal.
And this one journalist was really pushing this story, and he continued to report on other—on the expanding U.S. air war in Yemen. And one night, in the middle of the night, he was—in the middle of the day, he was out with a friend of his who was a political cartoonist, and they were shopping, and he was snatched by U.S.-backed, U.S.-trained counterterrorism forces in Sana&#8217;a, the capital of Yemen, and was taken to the political security prison and was beaten bloody by the security services and told that he was to stop talking about the missile strikes. And then they released him onto the streets. And what this journalist did was to go straight to Al Jazeera and say, &quot;I was just beaten by the political security officers, and they&#8217;re trying to stop me from talking about the U.S. missile strikes that are happening in the country.&quot;
And soon after he did that, his house was raided by the CTU , the counterterrorism unit, which is a JSOC - and CIA -trained entity. And they snatched him out of his home and disappeared him for 30 days. And no one knew where he was. And then they hauled him into a court that had been specifically set up by the dictatorship to prosecute journalists for crimes against the state, and was ultimately convicted of being an al-Qaeda facilitator, because he facilitated al-Qaeda members being able to speak to the media, and which—I&#8217;ve talked to people in U.S. intelligence who actually also believe that this case is outrageous, because they said, &quot;You took off the streets one of the best reporters that we would read so we could actually understand what was going on in Yemen, because of the notorious corruption of all of the informants.&quot;
So he is put into this prison. He&#8217;s put on trial, total sham trial. His lawyers refuse to present a defense. No lawyer would represent him, at his own request, because he said, &quot;I don&#8217;t want to recognize a shred of legitimacy of this process.&quot; And we have video of him when he is in prison. They bring him in front of the—into the courtroom in a cell. They have him in a cage in a cell. And as they&#8217;re pulling him away, he said, &quot;My crime is exposing the American missile attack on the tiny Bedouin village of al-Majalah in Abyan province. They&#8217;re putting me in jail because I exposed their cruise missile attack.&quot; And he said, &quot;This is what happens when Yemeni journalists are real journalists,&quot; and they pull him away, and they disappear him into this prison.
There was so much outrage in Yemen, from his tribe and from human rights organizations and from mainstream civil society in Yemen, that the dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had no choice but to issue a pardon against Abdulelah Haider Shaye. This happens a lot in Yemen. Someone gets arrests, the tribes protest, and then the person is released. It&#8217;s a whole—it&#8217;s a game that&#8217;s been playing out in that country for a long time. So, he&#8217;s going to issue a pardon, and the official news service, the Saba News Agency, does a report saying that this journalist is going to be pardoned.
That day, the dictator of Yemen receives a phone call from the White House—not from some liaison, not from secretary of state—from President Obama himself, personally. And President Obama tells the dictator of Yemen that he&#8217;s deeply concerned about news that Abdulelah Haider Shaye is going to be released. And the pardon is torn up. And lest you think I&#8217;m making this up or I&#8217;ve just heard it secondhand, I know this because the White House put it on their own website in a read-out of the phone call from that day. And when I called the State Department to ask them — this is a year-and-a-half after Abdulelah Haider had been in prison since this phone call — &quot;What is the U.S. State Department&#8217;s position on Abdulelah Haider Shaye?&quot; they said, &quot;Our position remains the same as that articulated by President Obama in that phone call. We believe he should be kept in prison.&quot; So this journalist is in prison because of the president of the United States making a phone call and having his pardon ripped up.
And he is not doing well in prison. I&#8217;m in touch with his family. He is—my understanding is that he&#8217;s losing—he&#8217;s starting to lose his mind, which is very common with people that are kept in solitary confinement or in these conditions.
And none of news organizations that worked with him in the U.S.—ABC News, Washington Post and—none of them have said anything about his case. Where are they? When he&#8217;s getting them sensationalist footage, when he interviewed Anwar al-Awlaki, they all wanted to broadcast his comments about Nidal Hasan, you know, who conducted the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. And they wanted to ask—they wanted to know what Awlaki said about the underwear bomber. You know why we know what Awlaki thought about that? Because Abdulelah Haider Shaye found him, interviewed him and published it in The Washington Post , on NBC . And yet, when he&#8217;s in prison, they say nothing. It&#8217;s shameful. It&#8217;s shameful.
And that&#8217;s often what happens in these cases. Journalists—journalists, like myself and others, we go into these countries. And, you know, I encourage people to read the acknowledgments in my book, because I tell you—I name the names of all of the journalists in Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world who made it possible for this story to be told. And they&#8217;re the real heroes of this. Unfamous journalists, who report oftentimes not in English, take the great risks. People like me, I go in, and I can go somewhere for a few weeks or a month, and I depend on them to be able to tell these stories. And so, when something happens to one of our colleagues—Somalia, journalists are being gunned down in record numbers; in Yemen, journalists are being thrown in prison—if we don&#8217;t speak up when we have a platform and defend our colleagues, we should be ashamed of ourselves, and we should be ashamed to call ourselves journalists.
AMY GOODMAN : Noam, as we wrap up, this is the week that the Bush library is being opened in Dallas, where there is an evaluation, a reevaluation going on of his record. It&#8217;s the 10th anniversary of the War in Iraq. And today we&#8217;re talking about the years of the Obama administration. Can you talk about President Obama&#8217;s record?
NOAM CHOMSKY : Well, let me tell you what I felt, and maybe some of the rest of you felt, when I saw the pictures of the Bush library presentation. There was a group of men standing there, former presidents, the ones that are alive. Every one of them is a major criminal. A major criminal. Obama is continuing the grand tradition—shouldn&#8217;t be a great surprise. And I guess the sentence that came to my mind at the time is actually from Thomas Jefferson, who said once that—he said, &quot;I tremble for my country when I think that God is just, and some day will bring us to his judgment.&quot; Well, if we can&#8217;t them to some kind of judgment either, if not in the courts, at least in public opinion, then it&#8217;s kind of like what Jeremy said: We&#8217;re not doing are duty just as responsible people.
AMY GOODMAN : And let—Jeremy, we&#8217;re going to end with you. This is your second major book. Your first book was Blackwater: The Rise of the World&#8217;s Most Powerful Mercenary Army , where you really reframed—you reframed the whole discussion about mercenaries and the privatization of the U.S. military. Suffice it to say, here we are, what, six years later, and Erik Prince had to move, the founder of Blackwater, to Abu Dhabi, and you remain here in the United States. Less—and I wanted to ask, with this second book—and Jeremy is going to be signing afterwards, and I encourage everyone to get this book, not just for interesting summer reading, but that we can see a spring and a summer of U.S. foreign policy. When we are informed, what a difference it makes to begin with those tools, to be empowered, to challenge what we—how we are represented in the rest of the world. But I want to ask you, Jeremy, finally—your new book is called Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield . What are you hoping to accomplish with this book? And why you even call it Dirty Wars ?
JEREMY SCAHILL : One thing that I think you&#8217;ll notice if you read the book—you know, I&#8217;ve talked to friends about the—you know, when I wrote Blackwater . I think I&#8217;ve grown up a lot since I wrote that book, in a sense, because something really strange happened to me after I wrote Blackwater , and that was that I started to get emails and other electronic communications from people that had served in special operations forces or worked with the CIA—not senior officials. I don&#8217;t hobnob with the powerful ever. In fact, when I was talking about this official who told me what he said about the killing of Abdulrahman, I had to chase him around the campus of a university I found him on, and, you know, he did not want to speak to me. I had to sort of chase him. That&#8217;s pretty much the only interaction I have with powerful officials is chasing them somewhere.
But I started to get communications from operators and people that were doing these operations. And there was a sort of a pattern to them early on, and sometimes they would come to events and come up to me afterwards. And they would say, you know, &quot;I don&#8217;t&quot;—a lot of them would say, &quot;I don&#8217;t care very much for your politics, but you were totally right about Blackwater. You know, I can&#8217;t stand them.&quot; And I got to know people in that world, in that community, because they also were—had problems with Blackwater and didn&#8217;t like various actions or problems that the company&#8217;s actions had caused for their units or the fact that they were getting paid so much more than the conventional soldiers—whatever it was. But I started a dialogue with some of these people that continues to this day, and I&#8217;ve learned a tremendous amount from them about how these operations run.
And what I tried to do in the book—I mean, I hope I succeeded, to a degree, with it—is to weave in and out of stories that show the complicated landscape of the killing fields and the men who do the operations on the ground, the figures who are identified as the targets, the civilians that are forced to live on the other side of the barrel of the gun or in the place where the bombs are going off, and to put it in a historical context.
I think if you had asked me years ago what I think—you know, what I wanted to accomplish or what I think should be done, I would have pretended to have an answer, because I think it&#8217;s—I was, you know—I was bull-headed.
I think that we, unfortunately, are only at the very beginning of a conversation that we have to—that&#8217;s urgent and that we have to have in this country about how far we, as a society, have let things go since 9/11 in the name of protecting our security. And I concur very much with what Noam said about being gripped by fear. You know, fear is a very powerful force. And if you don&#8217;t figure out a way to confront it and not be owned by it, then things like the PATRIOT Act happen, and civil liberties get rolled back. And, you know, people say, &quot;Oh, NDAA , the people that are whining about that are crazy, and it&#8217;s conspiracy theory,&quot; and all of these things. And you just have—just study history. It starts somewhere. It starts with an idea, and then a crisis happens, and they implement the idea that&#8217;s been laying around. You know, it&#8217;s a very age-old concept.
And my hope is that people use the book as actionable intelligence, which is actually an—you know, a term in the CIA or in the targeting business. But I want it to be actionable intelligence to work toward a democratic process of confronting our own fear and also holding those in power accountable, whether they&#8217;re Democrats or Republicans. I think all of us should be defined not by the public pronouncements of politicians, but by what we do in response to the actions they&#8217;re doing in our name. And that&#8217;s the spirit I wrote this book in. nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!NewsVideo: Jeremy Scahill & Noam Chomsky on Secret U.S. Dirty Wars From Yemen to Pakistan to Laos Update: See Jeremy Scahill speak this Friday in New York City at 7pm in the Tishman Auditorium at The New School. Click here for full event details.
Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill and author Noam Chomsky recently sat down together at Harvard University to discuss Scahill’s groundbreaking new book, &quot;Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield.&quot; Amy Goodman hosted the discussion, which was sponsored by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and the ACLU of Massachusetts.
TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN : What an honor it is to be here with Jeremy Scahill and Noam Chomsky. And I wanted to start with Noam responding Jeremy&#8217;s investigations and the description, putting it in the context of the history of U.S. foreign policy.
NOAM CHOMSKY : I had received an email this morning from a person who I&#8217;m sure many of you know about. It&#8217;s Fred Branfman. He&#8217;s a counterpart of Jeremy from back in the &#39;60s. He&#39;s the person who worked for years, with enormous courage and effort, to try to expose what were called the &quot;secret wars.&quot; The secret wars were perfectly public wars which the media were keeping secret, government. And Fred—this was in Laos—was—he finally did succeed in breaking through, and a tremendous exposure of huge wars that were going on—a war in northern Laos attacking a peasant society that was so remote from what was happening in the Indochina wars that many of them probably didn&#8217;t even know they were in Laos. Actually, with Fred, I met many of them in refugee camps after a CIA mercenary army drove them out from areas where they had been hiding in caves for two years under intense bombardment. He then proceeded to help expose the even worse wars in Cambodia and then the air wars, in general. Anyway, background.
One thing he pointed—what he pointed—he&#8217;s a great admirer of Jeremy&#8217;s, I should say, for very good reasons, which you&#8217;ve just heard and, I hope, will read and see. But Fred made an interesting point. He reminded me of a comment by a high American official back in 1968, who Fred was trying to get to speak. It&#8217;s not easy to get these people to speak, but he did. And this official—he was asking him, &quot;Why is this intensive bombing going on of northern Laos?&quot; Nothing to do with the war in Indochina, just destruction of a poor peasant society, one of the most malevolent acts of modern history, I think. And he finally—the official finally explained. He said, &quot;Look, there&#8217;s a temporary bombing of North—a cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam, and we have all these planes, and we don&#8217;t have anything to do with them. So we&#8217;ll bomb Laos.&quot;
OK, I think that&#8217;s the lesson of history that we should bare in mind in reading Jeremy&#8217;s exposures of, first, Blackwater and the mercenary army, and now JSOC , the so-called secret army—secret the same way the secret wars were secret. If you have a reporter who&#8217;s willing to—that has the courage and integrity to expose it, you can expose it. These resources are there. They&#8217;re growing. They have a self-generating capacity. They&#8217;re going to get larger and larger. They&#8217;re going to want more and more to do. And if one target disappears, they&#8217;ll be turned somewhere else. And as Jeremy hinted, they&#8217;ll be turned here.
And there&#8217;s a history of that, too. If some of you want to read about it, there&#8217;s a very important book by a historian, very good historian, Al McCoy, who, among other things, studied the history of drugs and torture and so on. But he&#8217;s a Philippine historian mainly, and he did a study of the Philippine War, the U.S. counterinsurgency war in the Philippines in the—over a century ago. It was a brutal, murderous war, hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, a horror story. And he pointed out that, at the time, after the war was over, when the so-called pacification began, the U.S. forces were—the Marines, mostly, in those days—were using the highest technology available to develop a surveillance system over the Philippine society, so they could do what—what, by our standards now, at a primitive level, the kinds of things that Jeremy described. And they did. And it&#8217;s turned the Philippines into a—this is the Philippines a hundred years later, have never escaped from this. Philippine society is permeated by the consequences of this long terror war.
But McCoy pointed out something else. He pointed out that these measures, from before the First World War, were very quickly picked up domestically, both by the British and the United States, and applied to surveillance and control techniques within their own societies—the FBI here and so on. And now that&#8217;s what we can expect, and signs of it are already around. The resources are there. They&#8217;re self-generating. They&#8217;re kept under a veil, so not too much inspection of them, though there could be, as you&#8217;ve seen. They&#8217;re going to grow. They&#8217;re going to develop. If the current targets disappear, they&#8217;ll move on to new targets, because that&#8217;s the nature of these systems, just like the planes who had nowhere to bomb so they decided to send them to bomb northern Laos. And they&#8217;ll come home. Already happening. And we can expect more and more of it. I think that&#8217;s the historical background that should very much be kept in mind.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL : [inaudible] Sorry. You know, there was a—there was a time when Amy and I, I think we were in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we were—I&#8217;m from Milwaukee, but we were doing Democracy Now! , the show, from there, and Amy had been on a speaking tour going all around the country and had given probably, you know, 200 speeches in like 199 days or something. I mean, it was this incredible tour that she was on. And in the middle of a show, she lost her voice in—I mean, had some coughing and then lost her voice. And it was this moment on the air no one knew what to do, because this—the voice we all listen to all the time all of a sudden like went sort of dead on the air. And I think there was a congresswoman or someone on the show, who was left to kind of deal with it. And Amy&#8217;s like going like this, like—and she&#8217;s not—she&#8217;s just meaning, like, &quot;Let&#8217;s go to break.&quot; But anyway, so, I think it&#8217;s a product of as much great speaking as you do.
One thing, though, in response to this, you know, I think that one thing that&#8217;s important to keep in mind is that very little of what this administration or the Bush administration did was actually new ideas. They were old, existing ideas and resurrections of certain plans and programs. I mean, if you look at the Phoenix program in Vietnam, which was this assassination program that was being run in Vietnam, there are very serious parallels to what the United States was doing in Iraq.
You know, the dominant historical narrative is that the surge won the Iraq War. And General Petraeus, had he not gone down for—you know, the only thing that seems to be capable of taking down the powerful is these sort of—you know, what they do in their top-secret chambers. They can wage all the so-called secret wars they want, but if they do something in their own secret life, then, you know—then you can bring them down. But Petraeus is often celebrated as this sort of hero who won the Iraq War because of the surge. But in reality, you had this merciless killing campaign that was being run by General Stanley McChrystal and Admiral William McRaven, where they were just bumping off the leadership of any cell that would pop off—pop up, but also just killing a tremendous number of people, in general.
And so, you had military figures that grew up in a certain era with an understanding of these programs. And when Cheney and Rumsfeld came into power with Bush, they really saw—but even before 9/11 happened, saw the historical moment that they had in front of them to sort of redraw maps and implement a vision of the world where Iran-Contra was a noble act and sort of the model for how the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy. I don&#8217;t know if you—if many of you know this, but Cheney was in Congress at the time that Iran-Contra was being investigated, and he authored the minority report in the House defending Iran-Contra and viewed it as a sort of heroic, necessary action. And they had this view of the unitary executive, the idea that when it comes to these national security issues, that the White House is essentially a dictatorship and that Congress&#8217;s only function is to fund the operations but not be involved with overseeing them or having any meaningful oversight of these operations.
And President Obama really had an opportunity to roll back some of the executive branch power grabs that Bush and Cheney had engaged in. And instead, he sort of doubled down on them and has been waging this unprecedented war against whistleblowers and using the Espionage Act and reserving the right of the state to keep secret from the American people evidence that would indicate why someone was being assassinated, to keep secret—to use the state secrets privilege in repeated lawsuits brought against former officials or torturers, having cases thrown out of court, using the full power structure of the executive branch in the same excessive way that was being used under Bush and Cheney.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy, you were talking about U.S. officials. Can you talk about McRaven and Gardez?
JEREMY SCAHILL : Well, that&#8217;s a—yeah, that&#8217;s a—so, one of the stories in the book, and also you&#8217;ll see this in our film, one of the characters in our film is Admiral William McRaven, who is, I think, one of the most powerful military figures in modern U.S. history. McRaven is the current commander of SOCOM , the Special Operations Command, in charge of all special operations activity across the globe in more than a hundred countries. But McRaven was actually an original member of SEAL Team 6, the Naval Warfare Development Group—DEVGRU, it&#8217;s called now. He was an original member of SEAL Team 6 and spent much of his career in the shadows of covert and clandestine U.S. military operations. And he would have been forward-deployed to Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, but he had injured his back in a parachuting accident at a training exercise in California, where there was a—where his SEAL team was based at the time.
And so, instead of forward-deploying to Afghanistan, Admiral McRaven was tapped by General Wayne Downing, who was coming up with the—with the process for putting people on these kill lists after 9/11 and trying to take down all of the leadership of al-Qaeda or anyone that they could attach to the 9/11 attacks. And Downing asked Admiral McRaven to come and advise the National Security Council. People think of the National Security Council as this huge body. It&#8217;s the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, and then staffers. But it really is just the core officials who dictate this policy. So, if the NSC is making decisions about targeted killing, it&#8217;s really the principals that are doing national defense, national security, counterterrorism.
So McRaven became the adviser to the most powerful officials in the U.S. government in developing how to implement the hunting down and killing of Osama bin Laden and others. And at the beginning, there were, by some estimates, between seven and two dozen individuals that were put on this list for—in the beginning it was kill or capture, but the emphasis was often on kill. And McRaven saw firsthand how the White House worked, and he learned a great deal about the politics of an administration, because he was there helping to craft a policy that he would later then run when he became the head of all special operations forces.
So, McRaven is there for a couple of years, and then ends up going to Iraq, where he was the deputy commander of the Joint Special Operations Command under Stanley McChrystal, who was very close to Dick Cheney. Cheney had gotten him a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations. And McChrystal was the commander of JSOC for much of the Bush administration. McRaven is working under McChrystal, running the kill campaign in Iraq and coordinating all of these actions against against both the—what was called al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and also going after Muqtada al-Sadr&#8217;s forces and others. So he sort of understood both ends of the game: how it was run in the White House and then how it was implemented in the field.
And when President Obama came into office, the two people who were responsible for the most covert, sensitive operations, being run by primarily Cheney and Rumsfeld, outside of the chain of command, were General McChrystal and Admiral McRaven. And they became the two most influential figures in shaping the Obama administration&#8217;s counterterroism policy. And, so, President Obama really empowered those forces and actually had McRaven in the White House helping to shape the policy—not just implement the military actions, but actually shaping policy. And most people had never heard of Admiral McRaven. And, of course, he&#8217;s now a kind of iconic figure because he commanded the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. And, of course, Disney tried to trademark SEAL Team 6 after the bin Laden raid—it&#8217;s a true story.
But what I—the way that I discovered the identity of Admiral McRaven was, in February of 2010, there was a raid in Gardez in Afghanistan, in Paktia province. And a U.S. special operations team had intelligence that there was a Taliban compound and that people living in a particular compound in this area were members of the Taliban who were plotting attacks against American forces. And they raid this compound in the middle of the night, and they end up killing a number of men and two pregnant women. And it turned out that this was not a Taliban family. In fact, they weren&#8217;t even ethnic Pashtun; they were from a minority ethnic group in the province. And the man of the house was a senior Afghan police commander who had been trained by the U.S. forces. And his family showed me his documents. He had actually been trained by a private security company called MPRI , which is made up of very—of high-ranking former military officials, intelligence officials and others. And so, these women were killed, this Afghan police commander who had fought with U.S. soldiers against the Taliban and against the Haqqani network in his province, and whose house was filled with pictures of him and U.S. soldiers smiling in these pictures, had just been killed.
And when the commandos that—the U.S. commandos that raided the house realized that they had killed these women and that the men that they had killed were not in fact Taliban, and that what they were doing that night was the most anti-Taliban of things they could have been doing, which was to be having a party with live music celebrating the naming of a child—the men were dancing and playing instruments, and it was this loud, boisterous party, and we have their cellphone video from that night. So, they raid this house; these people are killed. Instead of saying, &quot;Wow! We really messed up,&quot; and owning it—and that stuff happens every day in Afghanistan. People are getting killed all the time that have no attachment whatsoever to the Taliban or al-Qaeda or the Haqqani network, and the U.S. will often just pay them a little bit of money and move on, and it never makes it into the papers. That wouldn&#8217;t have been out of place. But instead of doing that, they dug the bullets out of the women&#8217;s bodies, and then they told their commanders that what had happened in the compound that night was a Taliban ambush of this family and that they had come upon these women who had been killed by the Taliban. And then they—there were leaks saying that, well, no, this was actually an honor killing, and the women were killed by their own family members. And they put out a press release, and spokespeople made these statements saying that this—that the U.S. soldiers were essentially heroes that had gone in there and saved everyone else.
But then, the family members, because they were a prominent family—one of the fathers of the women was the vice dean at Gardez University, who spoke fluent English, started calling reporters and telling people, you know, this is not what the—what NATO is saying. Then a very great reporter named Jerome Starkey actually went down there — he writes for The Times of London — and interviewed the family members and did a story saying that this was a NATO raid—he didn&#8217;t know it was JSOC at the time—that this was a botched NATO raid and that NATO had tried to cover it up. And he told the story of these families. And when Jerome Starkey did this, NATO did something extraordinary: They named him in a press release and said, &quot;Jerome Starkey of The Times of London is lying.&quot; They actually accused him of lying. And, I mean, that could have ended Starkey&#8217;s career. And Starkey, to his credit, kept pushing and pushing, and ended up doing a number of stories and got close to that family. And Rick and I also went to this family and filmed with them, and you see this in our video, and tell this story and tell the story of what happened to Jerome Starkey, as well.
So, media attention is focused in now on this village and this one family&#8217;s compound. And eventually NATO calls up Starkey, and they said, &quot;We&#8217;re about to put out a press release. We&#8217;re going to change our version of events.&quot; And they admit that their forces had killed, that NATO forces had killed these pregnant women and that the men were not Taliban commanders. So, the family told me and told Jerome Starkey the same thing, which is that they got a call, and a person they believed was General Stanley McChrystal was going to be coming to visit them. And at the time, McChrystal was the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. And they actually were plotting—they wanted to kill General McChrystal. They wanted to stab him to death when he came into their home. And one—and one of the men told me that &quot;When they did this to my family, I wanted to put on a suicide vest and blow myself up among the Americans.&quot; Remember, these were U.S. allies, and now they&#8217;re saying, &quot;I want a suicide vest, and I want to kill General McChrystal,&quot; who was the leader of the war. And an imam at their local mosque said, &quot;No, you&#8217;re not to do that. You&#8217;re to give him hospitality, like our people do, and you&#8217;ll welcome him into your home and hear what he has to say.&quot;
So they thought that General McChrystal was coming to see them. They called Jerome Starkey. Starkey goes down there with his photographer, Jeremy Kelly, and they&#8217;re waiting with the family, thinking that McChrystal is going to show up. And up pulls this convoy of vehicles with countless Afghan military officials and some Americans interspersed with them. And in the center of this crowd is a guy with a name tag that says &quot;McRaven&quot; on it and has three stars on the lapel. And they&#8217;ve brought with them two sheep. And they approach the compound in the very place where the women had been killed and this police commander had been killed, and they offload these sheep, and they put a knife up to the sheep&#8217;s neck, and they were going to sacrifice the sheep. And what they were doing was a ritual from these people&#8217;s culture, the people who were the victims of this. And they were—it was like a forgiveness ritual. So they were coming—Admiral McRaven shows up with some sheep, after this family had been gunned down and then they—and they had blamed it on the family and then said it was Taliban, and that—
So, this is unfolding. This photographer, Jeremy Kelly, starts taking photos of—he didn&#8217;t know who he was at the time—of Admiral McRaven. And at the time, Admiral McRaven was the commander of the most elite, secretive U.S. military force. And he shows up with the sheep in Gardez, Afghanistan, and they&#8217;re offering to sacrifice it. And the American and Afghan forces try to stop the photographer. They try to hit the camera away. They say that Starkey and Jeremy Kelly are not allowed in. But the family—and it was so smart of them—the family said, &quot;No, we want him here as a witness, so that someone independent is here to know what goes on today.&quot; And so they have photos, and Starkey took, in shorthand, all the notes of what McRaven said in the room that day. And McRaven admitted to the head of this household that it was his forces that had killed these pregnant women and the Afghan police commander. And he apologized.
And then there were all these stories that went out on ABC News and others that the head of the household had accepted the apology. When I spoke to him, he said, &quot;I don&#8217;t accept their apology at all.&quot; He said, &quot;The special forces did cruel things to us. They beat us. They ruined our life. They wiped out our economy in our compound by taking away all of these people. And they killed our pregnant women. I wouldn&#8217;t trade my two sons for the entire kingdom of the United States,&quot; is what he said. And another man chimed in, and he said, &quot;These are these commandos with beards. We call them the American Taliban.&quot; And this is an anti-Taliban family.
And so, you know, when I watched the bin Laden raid coverage, and people started saying JSOC publicly, and we were showed that the dog was named Cairo and was a French—Belgian Malinois, or whatever, and then we know what guns were used. And, you know, Rick and I talk about this all the time. We know every detail that was leaked—and, of course, a lot of it turned out to be not true, but that&#8217;s for a different story. I was thinking, where was the coverage of—like, wall-to-wall coverage of this operation that they did? Because that would give us a little bit more of a balanced picture of what happens in the thousands of night raids that happen every year in Afghanistan or in Pakistan or in countries that we&#8217;re not even aware we&#8217;re raiding right now. And so, that story, for me, really resonated strongly, because I think we only have a tiny fraction of understanding the extent of the kinds of operations that are being done on a daily basis around the world, and we often hear about them when they go the way that those in power want or when the version that they want publicized is the one accepted by powerful media outlets.
AMY GOODMAN : Noam, if you could respond to what Jeremy said. And also, you have written extensively about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and I was wondering if you could comment on that.
NOAM CHOMSKY : I was saying that I&#8217;ve written plenty of unpopular articles, and one of the most unpopular had to do with the murder, not killing, of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was a suspect. There are principles, believe it or not, that are not only in the Constitution, but that go back to 800 years, to Magna Carta, the foundations of Anglo-American law. That&#8217;s—I mean, they put it in narrow terms, but the general principle, including —Jeremy is quite correct—expansion of it to people other than our own citizens, is that a person can&#8217;t be punished by the state without due process of law and a speedy trial by his peers. That&#8217;s a reasonable principle. It&#8217;s in the Constitution. It was narrow, if you look, so in the Constitution it didn&#8217;t—naturally, it didn&#8217;t apply to Native Americans, it didn&#8217;t apply to blacks, and it dubiously applied to women, who at the time were considered property, not people. But over the years, it&#8217;s been expanded. And unless it gets to the point where—that Jeremy was talking about, where it&#8217;s just human beings, we can&#8217;t call ourselves a civilized society. Anyway, those are the principles.
Osama bin Laden was a suspect. In fact, personally, I don&#8217;t have any doubt that he was responsible, but my personal opinion is nothing that stands up in a court of law. You have to have evidence. You have to have a trial, a serious trial. And it was pretty clear that the U.S. government didn&#8217;t want that. He was captured, apprehended, by, you know, the most skilled masters of war—to use the Somali warlord&#8217;s expression—that exist in the world, 80 of them, I think. He was defenseless. The first story that came out was that they had to shoot him because his wife lunged at the SEALs. And what could they do? You know, they had to kill everybody. But that story was later withdrawn. It was nothing. He was just apprehended, defenseless, murdered, body throw into the ocean, leaving obvious questions as to why. And the dangers of this operation—a lot of the aspects of this operation—so it was a criminal—in my view, just total—a complete criminal act. No justification.
But, there&#8217;s more to it than this. And I was kind of reminded of it when Jeremy talked about the Yemeni testimony at the Senate. Now, those of you might have looked at the little, tiny report on that hidden in The New York Times . He said something else, this man who testified. He said that, for years, the al-Qaeda—the Islamist radicals—al-Qaeda, they call them—had been trying to turn the people of this village against the Americans. And they didn&#8217;t succeed. But you&#8217;ve succeeded with one drone strike. You&#8217;re creating more people to kill you, as you pointed out. And the same is true of the Osama bin
Laden assassination. First of all, the action itself was extremely hazardous. The Navy SEALs who were sent in were under orders to shoot their way out if they got into any trouble. Well, if they had started—the Pakistani army is a professional army, very committed, committed to the defense of the country, the sovereignty of the country. If they had been caught there and tried to shoot their way out, they wouldn&#8217;t have been left alone. The American forces next door would have come in in a massive force, and, you know, we might have been involved in a nuclear war. I mean, it was quite possible. That was part of the threat.
But there was something else that happened. Actually, it&#8217;s been reported recently, I think in Scientific American . But it was no—I mean, the way that they identified bin Laden was through a fraudulent vaccination campaign. They had doctors posing to do a anti-polio vaccination in a poor area of this town. Well, they pretty soon figured out it&#8217;s not the poor area, it&#8217;s the rich area, so they stopped the program in the middle, which is criminal in itself. Actually, running the program was criminal. You know, using a vaccination program and doctors to try to apprehend a suspect, I mean, that violates principles going back to the Hippocratic Oath. But then they stopped it in the middle, because they thought they were in the wrong area. More crimes. Then they finally identified him. But one consequence of their actions was to—there is always in these societies serious concern about what outsiders, Americans, are up to when they come in and start, you know, sticking needles in people and so on. It&#8217;s always there. Takes a lot of work to overcome that hostility. And it was being overcome in Pakistan. Now it&#8217;s gone. They will not permit people to come in carrying out vaccinations. Polio is almost gone in the world. Pakistan is one of the last places where it survives. OK, we&#8217;re encouraging the spread of polio. And as one commentator pointed out—back to the Yemeni in the Senate—one of these days, people are going to look at this crippled child and say, &quot;You did it to us.&quot; And you can guess what&#8217;s going to happen then.
AMY GOODMAN : If you missed that testimony in the Senate, in the first-ever Senate drone hearings of this young Yemeni activist and freelance journalist, you can go to democracynow.org, because last Wednesday we played it in full. And you can watch him and also read the transcript . But, Noam, I wanted to ask you to follow up on Jeremy&#8217;s opening point around the killing—and closing point—the killing of Americans versus people anywhere.
NOAM CHOMSKY : Well, Jeremy&#8217;s point is exactly right. And the murder of Awlaki—and we should be honest about it—was—you take a look at The New York Times the next day. There was a headline which said something like, &quot;West Celebrates Death of Radical Cleric.&quot; You know, good, we murdered a radical cleric. Then, concerns began to mount over the fact that he was an American. You know, bit of a problem if we go around killing Americans. And that&#8217;s pretty scandalous. I&#8217;ll just reiterate what Jeremy said. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether they&#8217;re Americans or whatever they are; they&#8217;re people. Going back to Magna Carta, the concept of people free of these—should be free of state terror, has been expanded over the years, substantially. And it should be expanded to include people. They should be free of state terror.
And I should say that I, myself, am kind of hesitant about some of the things I do myself. Right now I&#8217;m a plaintiff in a suit on the—against the NDAA , at least the NDAA proposals, Obama&#8217;s latest. The National Defense Authorization Act included—includes provisions which make it—which—optional for the government, if it chooses, to place American citizens under indefinite detention in military prisons, which is an incredible crime. You know, again, back to Magna Carta, much worse. And Chris Hedges organized a suit to try to oppose this, and I signed on, but with reservations, because what difference does it make if they&#8217;re American citizens? I mean, the same NDAA act authorized—in fact, makes it mandatory in some circumstances—for the government to place non-Americans under indefinite preventive detention. Should be—that&#8217;s what we should be—that&#8217;s what we should be concerned with.
This suit, incidentally, has taken an interesting course. Obama originally had said that he was opposed to those provisions in the act, but he would sign them. Then, when the case went to court, at the lower court level, the government case—the plaintiffs won. The judge threw out the government prosecution, on the—because the prosecution refused to answer a simple question: Will these plaintiffs be subject to administrative detention? Could they be? And they refused to answer that, so the judge threw that out. Obama immediately took it to the higher court. That shows you how much opposed he is to it. It will work its way to the Supreme Court. And given the Supreme Court, the government will probably win. Well, you know, these are things we should really be concerned about.
It&#8217;s not—if you want to know what—I&#8217;m sure you all know, but if you really want to know in detail what happens to non-citizens, read some of the testimonies. So, for example, there&#8217;s a recent book that came out by an Australian—David Hill, I think his name is. Very much worth reading. He&#8217;s a young man who was hiking around somewhere in northern Afghanistan. He was picked—
AMY GOODMAN : David Hicks.
NOAM CHOMSKY : Hmm?
AMY GOODMAN : David Hicks.
NOAM CHOMSKY : David Hicks, yeah. He was picked up by the Northern Alliance, the U.S. allies. They sold him for bounty to the American forces. And then he describes his years in Bagram and then at Guantánamo, and it was six or seven years. The torture, the sadism, the cruelty are just indescribable. These are American soldiers, you know, elite American soldiers. You just really have to read that to—I mean, if anybody knows American history, it won&#8217;t surprise you that much, but it&#8217;s right in front of our eyes.
And he said something quite interesting in his testimony, which I was struck by. He says the soldiers—of course, these guys were shackled, bound, you know, couldn&#8217;t move, surrounded by all kinds of military police and so on. But he said the guards were afraid of the prisoners. He said the guards had been so brainwashed by whatever training they went through, that they thought these prisoners were superhuman. He said that guards would come to his cell sometimes, where he&#8217;s shackled and, you know, so on, and ask him to perform some of his feats, like, you know, climb on the ceilings. &quot;Will you show us how you do it?&quot; And this kind of thing. And, in fact, when they took them out to be interrogated, they&#8217;d have like a platoon of marines around them to make sure that they didn&#8217;t carry out some incredibly monstrous act that these soldiers had probably seen in a video movie somewhere. But he said they really were terrified of the prisoners.
And that tells us something else about our own society, that what are we doing to our own society when we&#8217;re creating such terror and fear among ordinary people? I mean, it&#8217;s kind of like having guns in—you know, armed policemen in schools. Is that what you want your children to see, that we live in a society where you have to have people with guns around to protect you from some unimaginable danger? And here, there&#8217;s another serious—as far as American culture is concerned, something very much to be concerned about. This is a very frightened society, always has been—goes back to colonial times. Very striking. Today it is taking a remarkable form. If you look at the—you know, the gun culture, the people who are pressing for having guns are terrified. A lot of them are simply terrified. They&#8217;re like these guards standing outside the prison. What are they terrified of? You&#8217;ve got to have guns to protect theirselves from who? The federal government, the United Nations, aliens, whoever it may be. We don&#8217;t know what horrible force is coming after us, but we have to have guns to protect ourselves. I mean, put aside the fact the guns wouldn&#8217;t do you any good and you&#8217;ll probably kill each other, but the fear throughout the society is simply incredible.
AMY GOODMAN : Jeremy?
JEREMY SCAHILL : Just a couple of things in response to that. I was remembering, when you were talking about David Hicks&#8217; story, this case that I came across in Yemen of a journalist named Abdulelah Haider Shaye. When President Obama first authorized the bombing of Yemen was in December of 2009. The first strike that we know of authorized under the Obama administration was on December 17th, 2009, in Yemen. There hadn&#8217;t been a bombing, a U.S. bombing, there, that we know of, since November of 2002. The first drone strike, actually, that was conducted outside of Afghanistan was in Yemen in 2002, and it killed a number of people, including a U.S. citizen named Kemal Derwish. And he actually was not—was not supposedly the target of that strike, but they claimed that he had ties to a terror cell called the Lackawanna Six, which, like many of the plots we&#8217;ve seen lately, seemed to have been the—in large part, the FBI breaking up its own plot, and which is really scandalous if you look at how many times this has happened and all these cases of entrapment.
But so, President Obama starts—decides to start bombing Yemen in December of 2009. They do this strike on what they are told by the Yemeni government and by U.S. intelligence is an al-Qaeda training camp and that there is this notorious al-Qaeda figure who&#8217;s known to be in the camp. Well, it turned out that this guy, when we investigated it and went to Yemen and spoke to people that knew him and knew the infrastructure of AQAP , that he was an old jihadist who had fought in the mujahideen war in Afghanistan and had a very peripheral connection to al-Qaeda. So it seems like what happened is that, you know, the U.S. outsources a lot of its intelligence gathering in Yemen to notoriously corrupt Yemeni officials and agencies and to the Saudis, and the Saudis have their own war that they&#8217;re waging inside of Yemen. The U.S.-backed dictatorship of Ali Abdullah Saleh was playing multiple sides—playing the Saudis, playing the U.S., playing various tribes inside the country. There were several occasions when Saleh fed the U.S. intelligence saying someone was al-Qaeda, and it turned out to being a political opponent of the regime that was being killed or assassinated by the U.S. on behalf, in the service of the dictator of Yemen.
And so, in this case, on December 17th, 2009, they bomb this village, supposedly to kill this one guy, who does not seem to have been anything even vaguely resembling a senior al-Qaeda figure in the country. And after the missile strike happens, the Yemeni government puts out a press release taking credit for the strike, saying it had conducted these air strikes. And the Obama administration congratulated the Yemeni government on taking the fight to the terrorists in Yemen.
A number of tribal leaders in Yemen got phone calls from this small, poor Bedouin village called al-Majalah that these missiles had slammed into the area and had shredded people into meat. And these tribal leaders went there, and also a young—this young journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, who had done reporting and work for The Washington Post , for ABC News, for Al Jazeera. He was a very, very well-known journalist in Yemen. And he was known because he was a brave guy who would go and actually interview al-Qaeda figures. Much of what the United States knows about certain leaders in al-Qaeda comes from the reporting of Abdulelah Haider Shaye. You could look at one way and say he was a very valuable guy to have out talking to these people, because it helped the U.S. intelligence officials understand or operatives understand who it was they were supposedly trying to kill. But that&#8217;s for a different story.
So this guy goes there. These tribal leaders go there. And they take photographs of the missile parts. And they then show them, broadcast them on Al Jazeera and other outlets, and share them with Amnesty International. And Amnesty International has a weapons expert come in and analyze them, and they determined that they were—that it was a cruise missile attack. And when Rick and I were in Abyan province, we had the parts filmed. They&#8217;re still there in the desert, by the way. You can go—if you want to try to go to al-Majalah, you can go there, and they&#8217;re still in the middle of the desert, with &quot;General Dynamics&quot; and &quot;Made in the U.S.A.&quot; right there, visible, and we show this in our film. We show the aftermath of this bombing and the missile parts that were still there, you know, well after the bombs had dropped.
But the U.S. also—but the other bombs that they found there were cluster bombs, which of course are banned under international conventions. And the cluster bombs are basically—I saw the effect of them when the U.S. was using them in the Kosovo War in 1999. I went to the Nis marketplace after it was bombed in Serbia and saw the aftermath of it. They&#8217;re like flying land mines, and they shred everything in its path into meat and limbs. And it is horrifying to see the aftermath of any bombing, but cluster bombs are a particularly brutal weapon. And there were unexploded cluster bombs that were left there, and after the bombing had taken place, some children were playing near a cluster bomb and picked one of them up, and it blew them to pieces, two days after the bombing had happened.
So they take these pictures. They send them to Amnesty International. And these sheikhs, tribal sheikhs, organized a gathering to say that this is not the Yemeni government that did this, because Yemen doesn&#8217;t have these missiles. Amnesty does an analysis of them and determines that they were in fact U.S. weapons and that only the United States could have been responsible for that bombing.
And so, this sort of scandal was brewing inside of Yemen because the people who were killed there—there were at least 46 people killed. Fourteen of the people killed were women, and 21 were children. When the Yemeni Parliament, which is a—which is supported by the United States, went to investigate it, they listed all of the dead—their ages, their names, their genders—and I got a copy of that report and have the list of every single person that we know of that was killed in that strike. And we added it up, and it was 14 women and 21 children among the 46 dead, and in the pursuit of trying to kill this one person who the president of the United States had been told was this high-value target, who everyone in Yemen says was an older mujahideen who had primarily done his jihad in Afghanistan and not inside of Yemen.
When this started to become public, this Yemeni journalist was going on Al Jazeera and was helping other U.S. media outlets report that story, that it was in fact a U.S. strike. U.S. officials were denying it, and eventually then anonymously said, &quot;Yes, we were behind the strike,&quot; but General David Petraeus said that no civilians were actually killed in the strike and that it&#8217;s all a big exaggeration, which was very offensive to Yemenis of all political stripes. And so, it was an enduring scandal.
And this one journalist was really pushing this story, and he continued to report on other—on the expanding U.S. air war in Yemen. And one night, in the middle of the night, he was—in the middle of the day, he was out with a friend of his who was a political cartoonist, and they were shopping, and he was snatched by U.S.-backed, U.S.-trained counterterrorism forces in Sana&#8217;a, the capital of Yemen, and was taken to the political security prison and was beaten bloody by the security services and told that he was to stop talking about the missile strikes. And then they released him onto the streets. And what this journalist did was to go straight to Al Jazeera and say, &quot;I was just beaten by the political security officers, and they&#8217;re trying to stop me from talking about the U.S. missile strikes that are happening in the country.&quot;
And soon after he did that, his house was raided by the CTU , the counterterrorism unit, which is a JSOC - and CIA -trained entity. And they snatched him out of his home and disappeared him for 30 days. And no one knew where he was. And then they hauled him into a court that had been specifically set up by the dictatorship to prosecute journalists for crimes against the state, and was ultimately convicted of being an al-Qaeda facilitator, because he facilitated al-Qaeda members being able to speak to the media, and which—I&#8217;ve talked to people in U.S. intelligence who actually also believe that this case is outrageous, because they said, &quot;You took off the streets one of the best reporters that we would read so we could actually understand what was going on in Yemen, because of the notorious corruption of all of the informants.&quot;
So he is put into this prison. He&#8217;s put on trial, total sham trial. His lawyers refuse to present a defense. No lawyer would represent him, at his own request, because he said, &quot;I don&#8217;t want to recognize a shred of legitimacy of this process.&quot; And we have video of him when he is in prison. They bring him in front of the—into the courtroom in a cell. They have him in a cage in a cell. And as they&#8217;re pulling him away, he said, &quot;My crime is exposing the American missile attack on the tiny Bedouin village of al-Majalah in Abyan province. They&#8217;re putting me in jail because I exposed their cruise missile attack.&quot; And he said, &quot;This is what happens when Yemeni journalists are real journalists,&quot; and they pull him away, and they disappear him into this prison.
There was so much outrage in Yemen, from his tribe and from human rights organizations and from mainstream civil society in Yemen, that the dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had no choice but to issue a pardon against Abdulelah Haider Shaye. This happens a lot in Yemen. Someone gets arrests, the tribes protest, and then the person is released. It&#8217;s a whole—it&#8217;s a game that&#8217;s been playing out in that country for a long time. So, he&#8217;s going to issue a pardon, and the official news service, the Saba News Agency, does a report saying that this journalist is going to be pardoned.
That day, the dictator of Yemen receives a phone call from the White House—not from some liaison, not from secretary of state—from President Obama himself, personally. And President Obama tells the dictator of Yemen that he&#8217;s deeply concerned about news that Abdulelah Haider Shaye is going to be released. And the pardon is torn up. And lest you think I&#8217;m making this up or I&#8217;ve just heard it secondhand, I know this because the White House put it on their own website in a read-out of the phone call from that day. And when I called the State Department to ask them — this is a year-and-a-half after Abdulelah Haider had been in prison since this phone call — &quot;What is the U.S. State Department&#8217;s position on Abdulelah Haider Shaye?&quot; they said, &quot;Our position remains the same as that articulated by President Obama in that phone call. We believe he should be kept in prison.&quot; So this journalist is in prison because of the president of the United States making a phone call and having his pardon ripped up.
And he is not doing well in prison. I&#8217;m in touch with his family. He is—my understanding is that he&#8217;s losing—he&#8217;s starting to lose his mind, which is very common with people that are kept in solitary confinement or in these conditions.
And none of news organizations that worked with him in the U.S.—ABC News, Washington Post and—none of them have said anything about his case. Where are they? When he&#8217;s getting them sensationalist footage, when he interviewed Anwar al-Awlaki, they all wanted to broadcast his comments about Nidal Hasan, you know, who conducted the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. And they wanted to ask—they wanted to know what Awlaki said about the underwear bomber. You know why we know what Awlaki thought about that? Because Abdulelah Haider Shaye found him, interviewed him and published it in The Washington Post , on NBC . And yet, when he&#8217;s in prison, they say nothing. It&#8217;s shameful. It&#8217;s shameful.
And that&#8217;s often what happens in these cases. Journalists—journalists, like myself and others, we go into these countries. And, you know, I encourage people to read the acknowledgments in my book, because I tell you—I name the names of all of the journalists in Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world who made it possible for this story to be told. And they&#8217;re the real heroes of this. Unfamous journalists, who report oftentimes not in English, take the great risks. People like me, I go in, and I can go somewhere for a few weeks or a month, and I depend on them to be able to tell these stories. And so, when something happens to one of our colleagues—Somalia, journalists are being gunned down in record numbers; in Yemen, journalists are being thrown in prison—if we don&#8217;t speak up when we have a platform and defend our colleagues, we should be ashamed of ourselves, and we should be ashamed to call ourselves journalists.
AMY GOODMAN : Noam, as we wrap up, this is the week that the Bush library is being opened in Dallas, where there is an evaluation, a reevaluation going on of his record. It&#8217;s the 10th anniversary of the War in Iraq. And today we&#8217;re talking about the years of the Obama administration. Can you talk about President Obama&#8217;s record?
NOAM CHOMSKY : Well, let me tell you what I felt, and maybe some of the rest of you felt, when I saw the pictures of the Bush library presentation. There was a group of men standing there, former presidents, the ones that are alive. Every one of them is a major criminal. A major criminal. Obama is continuing the grand tradition—shouldn&#8217;t be a great surprise. And I guess the sentence that came to my mind at the time is actually from Thomas Jefferson, who said once that—he said, &quot;I tremble for my country when I think that God is just, and some day will bring us to his judgment.&quot; Well, if we can&#8217;t them to some kind of judgment either, if not in the courts, at least in public opinion, then it&#8217;s kind of like what Jeremy said: We&#8217;re not doing are duty just as responsible people.
AMY GOODMAN : And let—Jeremy, we&#8217;re going to end with you. This is your second major book. Your first book was Blackwater: The Rise of the World&#8217;s Most Powerful Mercenary Army , where you really reframed—you reframed the whole discussion about mercenaries and the privatization of the U.S. military. Suffice it to say, here we are, what, six years later, and Erik Prince had to move, the founder of Blackwater, to Abu Dhabi, and you remain here in the United States. Less—and I wanted to ask, with this second book—and Jeremy is going to be signing afterwards, and I encourage everyone to get this book, not just for interesting summer reading, but that we can see a spring and a summer of U.S. foreign policy. When we are informed, what a difference it makes to begin with those tools, to be empowered, to challenge what we—how we are represented in the rest of the world. But I want to ask you, Jeremy, finally—your new book is called Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield . What are you hoping to accomplish with this book? And why you even call it Dirty Wars ?
JEREMY SCAHILL : One thing that I think you&#8217;ll notice if you read the book—you know, I&#8217;ve talked to friends about the—you know, when I wrote Blackwater . I think I&#8217;ve grown up a lot since I wrote that book, in a sense, because something really strange happened to me after I wrote Blackwater , and that was that I started to get emails and other electronic communications from people that had served in special operations forces or worked with the CIA—not senior officials. I don&#8217;t hobnob with the powerful ever. In fact, when I was talking about this official who told me what he said about the killing of Abdulrahman, I had to chase him around the campus of a university I found him on, and, you know, he did not want to speak to me. I had to sort of chase him. That&#8217;s pretty much the only interaction I have with powerful officials is chasing them somewhere.
But I started to get communications from operators and people that were doing these operations. And there was a sort of a pattern to them early on, and sometimes they would come to events and come up to me afterwards. And they would say, you know, &quot;I don&#8217;t&quot;—a lot of them would say, &quot;I don&#8217;t care very much for your politics, but you were totally right about Blackwater. You know, I can&#8217;t stand them.&quot; And I got to know people in that world, in that community, because they also were—had problems with Blackwater and didn&#8217;t like various actions or problems that the company&#8217;s actions had caused for their units or the fact that they were getting paid so much more than the conventional soldiers—whatever it was. But I started a dialogue with some of these people that continues to this day, and I&#8217;ve learned a tremendous amount from them about how these operations run.
And what I tried to do in the book—I mean, I hope I succeeded, to a degree, with it—is to weave in and out of stories that show the complicated landscape of the killing fields and the men who do the operations on the ground, the figures who are identified as the targets, the civilians that are forced to live on the other side of the barrel of the gun or in the place where the bombs are going off, and to put it in a historical context.
I think if you had asked me years ago what I think—you know, what I wanted to accomplish or what I think should be done, I would have pretended to have an answer, because I think it&#8217;s—I was, you know—I was bull-headed.
I think that we, unfortunately, are only at the very beginning of a conversation that we have to—that&#8217;s urgent and that we have to have in this country about how far we, as a society, have let things go since 9/11 in the name of protecting our security. And I concur very much with what Noam said about being gripped by fear. You know, fear is a very powerful force. And if you don&#8217;t figure out a way to confront it and not be owned by it, then things like the PATRIOT Act happen, and civil liberties get rolled back. And, you know, people say, &quot;Oh, NDAA , the people that are whining about that are crazy, and it&#8217;s conspiracy theory,&quot; and all of these things. And you just have—just study history. It starts somewhere. It starts with an idea, and then a crisis happens, and they implement the idea that&#8217;s been laying around. You know, it&#8217;s a very age-old concept.
And my hope is that people use the book as actionable intelligence, which is actually an—you know, a term in the CIA or in the targeting business. But I want it to be actionable intelligence to work toward a democratic process of confronting our own fear and also holding those in power accountable, whether they&#8217;re Democrats or Republicans. I think all of us should be defined not by the public pronouncements of politicians, but by what we do in response to the actions they&#8217;re doing in our name. And that&#8217;s the spirit I wrote this book in. nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!News40 Years After Secret U.S. War in Laos Ended, Millions of Unexploded Bomblets Keep Killing Laotianshttp://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/4/4/40_years_after_secret_us_war_in_laos_ended_millions_of_unexploded_bomblets_keep_killing_laotians
tag:democracynow.org,2013-04-04:blog/b0305a Forty years ago, on March 29, 1973, the &quot;secret&quot; U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end. By that point, the United States had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That is the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years &mdash; more than on Germany and Japan during World War II. The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs. Experts estimate Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies&quot; &mdash; or baseball-size bombs found inside cluster bombs. Since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. To mark International Day of Mine Awareness, we speak to a Laotian bomb survivor and a leader of an all-women bomb clearance team in Laos. Thoummy Silamphan and Manixia Thor are speaking at the United Nations today and are currently in the United States on a tour organized by Legacies of War .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman.
It was 40 years ago that the &quot;secret&quot; U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end, March 29, 1973. By that point, the U.S. had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That&#8217;s the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—more than was dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.
The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they were dropped from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies,&quot; or bomblets—baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs.
Well, since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. This is the focus of our guests, who have come from Laos to raise awareness about this ongoing problem. Our guests are Thoummy Silamphan, a bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate—he was eight years old when a bomb exploded as he was digging in the earth. Manixia Thor is with us. She leads an all-women bomb clearance team in Lao. And Channapha Khamvongsa is the founder and executive director of Legacies of War.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Thoummy, I&#8217;d like to begin with you. Talk about what happened to you.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : So, when I was eight years old—
AMY GOODMAN : Eight years old.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yeah, and when I was eight years old, at that time I studied in primary school. So, one day, I needed to find some bamboo shoots for to feed my family, to make soup. So—and when I saw the bamboo shoots, and I tried to dig into bamboo shoots. After that, the bombie explode to me.
AMY GOODMAN : What you call a &quot;bombie,&quot; like a bomblet, exploded?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes, because at that time in my village or in those areas, we have a lot of the bombing, and we don&#8217;t know the bomb under ground. And when we&#8217;re digging for bamboo shoots, and then the UXO explode to me, yeah. And it get—I lost my left hand. And that time, it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to continue my life. And—
AMY GOODMAN : How far up does your prosthetic go of your left hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : I think just over here.
AMY GOODMAN : It&#8217;s just your hand.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yeah, just my hand, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : How did the bomb explode and destroy your hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : When I dig in the bamboo shoots, and then, because I don&#8217;t know the bombie underground, and when I&#8217;m digging, and then the bombie explode to me. And then I pass near the bamboo shoots. And I have the farmer who&#8217;s working around this area that has come to help me, to carry me to my house. And that time, when I arrived at home, my parents, they are very, very upset. And then they just sent me to the hospital. So I spent a time in the hospital for treatment, 28 days. And—
AMY GOODMAN : And again, this is when you were eight years old.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes.
AMY GOODMAN : How old are you now?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Now I&#8217;m 26.
AMY GOODMAN : And what kind of use do you have of your hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : I want to say, now I use the prosthetic hand. And it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to help myself. And I just can help type a computer or something like that.
AMY GOODMAN : If you could talk, Channapha, about the significance of this tour that you&#8217;re beginning?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Sure. So this is really the first unprecedented journey by those who are directly impacted by cluster munitions from 40 years ago. So, Thoummy and Manixia really represent the new generation. So, two generations later, people are still being hurt and maimed by these bombies. And Manixia, of course, is, you know, a female deminer. And so, really, this is the first time that voices from Lao, that were unheard from during the bombings, are now speaking about their lives and what they&#8217;re living with, what their families are living with and what their communities are living with. And so, we&#8217;re incredibly excited not only to talk about, you know, the history, but really the ongoing problems and ways that we can address this so that future generations can live on their land safely.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about your own family background? And first, you say Lao or Laos?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : When I&#8217;m in country, I usually say Lao. When I&#8217;m around Lao people, they usually say Lao. But here in the U.S. context, it&#8217;s usually Laos, the country.
AMY GOODMAN : So, talk about your own family. You live now in Washington, D.C.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Yes. I was born in Vientiane and came here when I was quite young. I went through refugee camp. And so, you know, part of—in trying to, I think, sort of learn about the history of why our family came here, of course that history included this dark part of our past, both as Lao and an American. And so, that sort of sense of identity has really led me to further understand the history, but also the ongoing problems of what we can do to bring a safer world to the children and the people of Laos.
AMY GOODMAN : Manixia Thor, you lead an all-women bomb clearance team. We&#8217;re talking about 80 million unexploded U.S. bombs in Lao soil. What is a clearance team? And what does it mean to be all women? Channapha Khamvongsa is translating.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] So, every day, as an all-female demining team, we go out and we dig and try to find bomblets on land where people live and farm and work. So, she&#8217;s just emphasizing the importance of the job and the importance of clearance, because it&#8217;s people&#8217;s livelihoods and it&#8217;s people&#8217;s lives. If they don&#8217;t work the land, they don&#8217;t eat.
AMY GOODMAN : How did you choose to do this? This is an incredibly dangerous job.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] It&#8217;s very dangerous. I&#8217;m afraid. Other people are afraid. And so this work is necessary, because there are so many bomblets, and it&#8217;s so dangerous for the people in the country. And so it&#8217;s necessary work.
AMY GOODMAN : Describe how you find these bombs and how you clear them.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] There&#8217;s a metal detector. And if we come across one, we will carefully excavate it, see what kind of bomb it is, and if it&#8217;s large, then we will clear it and then detonate it. And so, for little bomblets, the one that you described, the 80 million that they come across, it will be brought, piled together, and then the villagers are cleared, and then they explode them.
AMY GOODMAN : Do you wear some kind of protection?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] No, actually.
AMY GOODMAN : On Friday, on the 40th anniversary of the ending of the U.S. bombings in Laos, a bomb left over from the nearly decade-long bombing campaign claimed the life of a two-year-old boy and injured five others as they prepared their lunch over a fire. Thoummy, how common is this?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : So now, we want to say, as I think—you know, as the war is ended and stopped many years ago, but now the UXO continue to kill and injure people, until now. And that is why we want to involve for the Legacies of War. I think Legacies of War is very, very important for the Lao people, especially for the UXO clearance and for victim assistance in Laos, because now we have more than hundred town the UXO explode in Laos. And now we also have many survivors that are waiting for support and help.
AMY GOODMAN : You have come to the United States. This is some fact and figures from The Guardian newspaper. So far, the U.S. has contributed an average of about $3 million a year to bomb removal efforts in Laos. In contrast, the U.S. spent more than $2 million a day—about $17 million in today&#8217;s dollars—for nine years dropping the bombs in the first place. Channapha, if you can talk about the significance of this, what the U.S. is doing now and what you want the United States to do?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Sure. So when we first started, and in—this issue was not even on the radar of most policy makers. And so, with support from congressional members and mobilizing the community around the country, we&#8217;ve been able to bump the number per year from $1.5 million when we first started to now $9 million. Obviously that&#8217;s been a significant increase. And the contribution—
AMY GOODMAN : Per year?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Per year. And the contribution from the U.S. has grown significantly. Obviously, it doesn&#8217;t match the scale of the problem. The fact is, less than 2 percent of what was dropped has actually been cleared. And so, every single province in Laos is still affected. And—
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, should it even be Laotians who are doing this? Or do you feel the U.S. should be doing this?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : No, I—
AMY GOODMAN : They dropped the bombs.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right. I think that we can—we need to do this together. Those on the ground, those that—people like Manixia and Thoummy live with this on a daily basis, and they can help themselves. What we need is international support, support from the U.S., and resources to continue this work, because it&#8217;s not going to go away anytime soon. And so, it&#8217;s important to build local capacity. But at the same time, more resources are needed.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re about a half-hour&#8217;s drive from Honeywell&#8217;s corporate headquarters. Honeywell is the maker of many of these bombs that are left in the soil of your country. Have you spoken with Honeywell or any of the other bomb makers?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : We haven&#8217;t—we haven&#8217;t reached—we haven&#8217;t gone through that route. We know that there are many people from that era and that generation that were involved with either the bombings, the production of—and who never would have thought that, 40 years later, what they were involved in, whether it was the bombing, whether it was the production of these bombs, that it would still be killing and maiming people. And so, actually, many of those individuals have joined our effort to make sure that the next generations aren&#8217;t impacted by what was done 40 years ago.
AMY GOODMAN : Manixia, what were you taught, growing up, about where these bombs came from?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] She heard from her father during the wartime that planes dropped bombs on her—yeah, he actually never identified the country; he just said the bombies came from planes from above.
AMY GOODMAN : And so, what is your message here? Why have you come to the United States?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] This is very important. And, yeah, this is an opportunity to tell the American people about what is going on in my country and the problem of UXO . The war might have ended 40 years ago, but for the people of Laos, it really hasn&#8217;t. And it&#8217;s still very alive for many of us in Lao today. So the hope is that as people hear and understand the problems, that there will be more support, there will be more awareness, and that we will get additional support to do our work.
AMY GOODMAN : Have you ever worked with a U.S. bomb clearance team?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] No, because I would do work in Laos, so I haven&#8217;t done any work in the U.S.
AMY GOODMAN : But they haven&#8217;t come to you to help you clear American bombs from your soil?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] There are a lot of international workers.
AMY GOODMAN : Where are they from, generally?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] From Lebanon, mainly.
AMY GOODMAN : Channapha, how many people are like Thoummy, have been victims of the exploding bombies or bomblets or bombs, land mines in the ground now?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Yeah, so, since the end of the bombings, as the last bombs were dropped, about 20,000 people have been killed or maimed. And as you alluded to earlier, just on Friday, you know, six people were injured. Two—there was one death, the two-year-old. But the other deaths—
AMY GOODMAN : And what happened?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : They were cooking around a fireplace. You know, we would go and microwave our food or turn on the stove. In Lao, they cook around a fire. And a little boy found a bombie, brought it into the circle, and it exploded. Of those that were killed or injured, the boy was two years old. The other three were another two-year-old, a three-year-old and a five-year-old. Forty percent of those that are killed or injured are children.
AMY GOODMAN : Is there education across Laos, in addition to the bomb clearance teams and efforts, for people not to pick up these bombs? Or how do you avoid inadvertently setting them off?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right, no. The education happens, but they&#8217;re so profuse. They&#8217;re everywhere. And as you know, children are curious. And these little bomblets look like tennis-size ball toys. And so, they&#8217;re very curious. And I would imagine that this two-year-old thought he was picking up something that he could play with.
AMY GOODMAN : How many people live in Laos today?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : About 6.5 million.
AMY GOODMAN : 6.5 million. And there are 80 million bomblets, bombs, bombies still in the land in Laos?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right. Yes.
AMY GOODMAN : That is something—that&#8217;s more than 10 per person.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : The amount of bombs that were dropped equated to about a thousand pounds per person.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, I want to thank you all for being with us, Thoummy Silamphan, for joining us from Laos, coming to the United States; Manixia Thor, who leads the all-women bomb clearance team; and Channapha Khamvongsa, who is head of Legacies of War here in the United States.
Forty years ago, on March 29, 1973, the "secret" U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end. By that point, the United States had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That is the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years — more than on Germany and Japan during World War II. The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs. Experts estimate Laos is littered with as many as 80 million "bombies" — or baseball-size bombs found inside cluster bombs. Since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. To mark International Day of Mine Awareness, we speak to a Laotian bomb survivor and a leader of an all-women bomb clearance team in Laos. Thoummy Silamphan and Manixia Thor are speaking at the United Nations today and are currently in the United States on a tour organized by Legacies of War.

AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

It was 40 years ago that the "secret" U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end, March 29, 1973. By that point, the U.S. had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That’s the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—more than was dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.

The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they were dropped from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million "bombies," or bomblets—baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs.

Well, since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. This is the focus of our guests, who have come from Laos to raise awareness about this ongoing problem. Our guests are Thoummy Silamphan, a bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate—he was eight years old when a bomb exploded as he was digging in the earth. Manixia Thor is with us. She leads an all-women bomb clearance team in Lao. And Channapha Khamvongsa is the founder and executive director of Legacies of War.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Thoummy, I’d like to begin with you. Talk about what happened to you.

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: So, when I was eight years old—

AMYGOODMAN: Eight years old.

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: Yeah, and when I was eight years old, at that time I studied in primary school. So, one day, I needed to find some bamboo shoots for to feed my family, to make soup. So—and when I saw the bamboo shoots, and I tried to dig into bamboo shoots. After that, the bombie explode to me.

AMYGOODMAN: What you call a "bombie," like a bomblet, exploded?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: Yes, because at that time in my village or in those areas, we have a lot of the bombing, and we don’t know the bomb under ground. And when we’re digging for bamboo shoots, and then the UXO explode to me, yeah. And it get—I lost my left hand. And that time, it’s very, very difficult for me to continue my life. And—

AMYGOODMAN: How far up does your prosthetic go of your left hand?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: I think just over here.

AMYGOODMAN: It’s just your hand.

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: Yeah, just my hand, yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: How did the bomb explode and destroy your hand?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: When I dig in the bamboo shoots, and then, because I don’t know the bombie underground, and when I’m digging, and then the bombie explode to me. And then I pass near the bamboo shoots. And I have the farmer who’s working around this area that has come to help me, to carry me to my house. And that time, when I arrived at home, my parents, they are very, very upset. And then they just sent me to the hospital. So I spent a time in the hospital for treatment, 28 days. And—

AMYGOODMAN: And again, this is when you were eight years old.

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: Yes.

AMYGOODMAN: How old are you now?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: Now I’m 26.

AMYGOODMAN: And what kind of use do you have of your hand?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: I want to say, now I use the prosthetic hand. And it’s very, very difficult for me to help myself. And I just can help type a computer or something like that.

AMYGOODMAN: If you could talk, Channapha, about the significance of this tour that you’re beginning?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Sure. So this is really the first unprecedented journey by those who are directly impacted by cluster munitions from 40 years ago. So, Thoummy and Manixia really represent the new generation. So, two generations later, people are still being hurt and maimed by these bombies. And Manixia, of course, is, you know, a female deminer. And so, really, this is the first time that voices from Lao, that were unheard from during the bombings, are now speaking about their lives and what they’re living with, what their families are living with and what their communities are living with. And so, we’re incredibly excited not only to talk about, you know, the history, but really the ongoing problems and ways that we can address this so that future generations can live on their land safely.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you talk about your own family background? And first, you say Lao or Laos?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: When I’m in country, I usually say Lao. When I’m around Lao people, they usually say Lao. But here in the U.S. context, it’s usually Laos, the country.

AMYGOODMAN: So, talk about your own family. You live now in Washington, D.C.

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Yes. I was born in Vientiane and came here when I was quite young. I went through refugee camp. And so, you know, part of—in trying to, I think, sort of learn about the history of why our family came here, of course that history included this dark part of our past, both as Lao and an American. And so, that sort of sense of identity has really led me to further understand the history, but also the ongoing problems of what we can do to bring a safer world to the children and the people of Laos.

AMYGOODMAN: Manixia Thor, you lead an all-women bomb clearance team. We’re talking about 80 million unexploded U.S. bombs in Lao soil. What is a clearance team? And what does it mean to be all women? Channapha Khamvongsa is translating.

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] So, every day, as an all-female demining team, we go out and we dig and try to find bomblets on land where people live and farm and work. So, she’s just emphasizing the importance of the job and the importance of clearance, because it’s people’s livelihoods and it’s people’s lives. If they don’t work the land, they don’t eat.

AMYGOODMAN: How did you choose to do this? This is an incredibly dangerous job.

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] It’s very dangerous. I’m afraid. Other people are afraid. And so this work is necessary, because there are so many bomblets, and it’s so dangerous for the people in the country. And so it’s necessary work.

AMYGOODMAN: Describe how you find these bombs and how you clear them.

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] There’s a metal detector. And if we come across one, we will carefully excavate it, see what kind of bomb it is, and if it’s large, then we will clear it and then detonate it. And so, for little bomblets, the one that you described, the 80 million that they come across, it will be brought, piled together, and then the villagers are cleared, and then they explode them.

AMYGOODMAN: Do you wear some kind of protection?

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] No, actually.

AMYGOODMAN: On Friday, on the 40th anniversary of the ending of the U.S. bombings in Laos, a bomb left over from the nearly decade-long bombing campaign claimed the life of a two-year-old boy and injured five others as they prepared their lunch over a fire. Thoummy, how common is this?

THOUMMYSILAMPHAN: So now, we want to say, as I think—you know, as the war is ended and stopped many years ago, but now the UXO continue to kill and injure people, until now. And that is why we want to involve for the Legacies of War. I think Legacies of War is very, very important for the Lao people, especially for the UXO clearance and for victim assistance in Laos, because now we have more than hundred town the UXO explode in Laos. And now we also have many survivors that are waiting for support and help.

AMYGOODMAN: You have come to the United States. This is some fact and figures from The Guardian newspaper. So far, the U.S. has contributed an average of about $3 million a year to bomb removal efforts in Laos. In contrast, the U.S. spent more than $2 million a day—about $17 million in today’s dollars—for nine years dropping the bombs in the first place. Channapha, if you can talk about the significance of this, what the U.S. is doing now and what you want the United States to do?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Sure. So when we first started, and in—this issue was not even on the radar of most policy makers. And so, with support from congressional members and mobilizing the community around the country, we’ve been able to bump the number per year from $1.5 million when we first started to now $9 million. Obviously that’s been a significant increase. And the contribution—

AMYGOODMAN: Per year?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Per year. And the contribution from the U.S. has grown significantly. Obviously, it doesn’t match the scale of the problem. The fact is, less than 2 percent of what was dropped has actually been cleared. And so, every single province in Laos is still affected. And—

AMYGOODMAN: I mean, should it even be Laotians who are doing this? Or do you feel the U.S. should be doing this?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: No, I—

AMYGOODMAN: They dropped the bombs.

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Right. I think that we can—we need to do this together. Those on the ground, those that—people like Manixia and Thoummy live with this on a daily basis, and they can help themselves. What we need is international support, support from the U.S., and resources to continue this work, because it’s not going to go away anytime soon. And so, it’s important to build local capacity. But at the same time, more resources are needed.

AMYGOODMAN: We’re about a half-hour’s drive from Honeywell’s corporate headquarters. Honeywell is the maker of many of these bombs that are left in the soil of your country. Have you spoken with Honeywell or any of the other bomb makers?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: We haven’t—we haven’t reached—we haven’t gone through that route. We know that there are many people from that era and that generation that were involved with either the bombings, the production of—and who never would have thought that, 40 years later, what they were involved in, whether it was the bombing, whether it was the production of these bombs, that it would still be killing and maiming people. And so, actually, many of those individuals have joined our effort to make sure that the next generations aren’t impacted by what was done 40 years ago.

AMYGOODMAN: Manixia, what were you taught, growing up, about where these bombs came from?

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] She heard from her father during the wartime that planes dropped bombs on her—yeah, he actually never identified the country; he just said the bombies came from planes from above.

AMYGOODMAN: And so, what is your message here? Why have you come to the United States?

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] This is very important. And, yeah, this is an opportunity to tell the American people about what is going on in my country and the problem of UXO. The war might have ended 40 years ago, but for the people of Laos, it really hasn’t. And it’s still very alive for many of us in Lao today. So the hope is that as people hear and understand the problems, that there will be more support, there will be more awareness, and that we will get additional support to do our work.

AMYGOODMAN: Have you ever worked with a U.S. bomb clearance team?

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] No, because I would do work in Laos, so I haven’t done any work in the U.S.

AMYGOODMAN: But they haven’t come to you to help you clear American bombs from your soil?

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] There are a lot of international workers.

AMYGOODMAN: Where are they from, generally?

MANIXIATHOR: [translated] From Lebanon, mainly.

AMYGOODMAN: Channapha, how many people are like Thoummy, have been victims of the exploding bombies or bomblets or bombs, land mines in the ground now?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Yeah, so, since the end of the bombings, as the last bombs were dropped, about 20,000 people have been killed or maimed. And as you alluded to earlier, just on Friday, you know, six people were injured. Two—there was one death, the two-year-old. But the other deaths—

AMYGOODMAN: And what happened?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: They were cooking around a fireplace. You know, we would go and microwave our food or turn on the stove. In Lao, they cook around a fire. And a little boy found a bombie, brought it into the circle, and it exploded. Of those that were killed or injured, the boy was two years old. The other three were another two-year-old, a three-year-old and a five-year-old. Forty percent of those that are killed or injured are children.

AMYGOODMAN: Is there education across Laos, in addition to the bomb clearance teams and efforts, for people not to pick up these bombs? Or how do you avoid inadvertently setting them off?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Right, no. The education happens, but they’re so profuse. They’re everywhere. And as you know, children are curious. And these little bomblets look like tennis-size ball toys. And so, they’re very curious. And I would imagine that this two-year-old thought he was picking up something that he could play with.

AMYGOODMAN: How many people live in Laos today?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: About 6.5 million.

AMYGOODMAN: 6.5 million. And there are 80 million bomblets, bombs, bombies still in the land in Laos?

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: Right. Yes.

AMYGOODMAN: That is something—that’s more than 10 per person.

CHANNAPHAKHAMVONGSA: The amount of bombs that were dropped equated to about a thousand pounds per person.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us, Thoummy Silamphan, for joining us from Laos, coming to the United States; Manixia Thor, who leads the all-women bomb clearance team; and Channapha Khamvongsa, who is head of Legacies of War here in the United States.

]]>
Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:20:00 -040040 Years After Secret U.S. War in Laos Ended, Millions of Unexploded Bomblets Keep Killing Laotians Forty years ago, on March 29, 1973, the &quot;secret&quot; U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end. By that point, the United States had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That is the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years &mdash; more than on Germany and Japan during World War II. The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs. Experts estimate Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies&quot; &mdash; or baseball-size bombs found inside cluster bombs. Since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. To mark International Day of Mine Awareness, we speak to a Laotian bomb survivor and a leader of an all-women bomb clearance team in Laos. Thoummy Silamphan and Manixia Thor are speaking at the United Nations today and are currently in the United States on a tour organized by Legacies of War .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman.
It was 40 years ago that the &quot;secret&quot; U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end, March 29, 1973. By that point, the U.S. had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That&#8217;s the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—more than was dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.
The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they were dropped from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies,&quot; or bomblets—baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs.
Well, since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. This is the focus of our guests, who have come from Laos to raise awareness about this ongoing problem. Our guests are Thoummy Silamphan, a bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate—he was eight years old when a bomb exploded as he was digging in the earth. Manixia Thor is with us. She leads an all-women bomb clearance team in Lao. And Channapha Khamvongsa is the founder and executive director of Legacies of War.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Thoummy, I&#8217;d like to begin with you. Talk about what happened to you.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : So, when I was eight years old—
AMY GOODMAN : Eight years old.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yeah, and when I was eight years old, at that time I studied in primary school. So, one day, I needed to find some bamboo shoots for to feed my family, to make soup. So—and when I saw the bamboo shoots, and I tried to dig into bamboo shoots. After that, the bombie explode to me.
AMY GOODMAN : What you call a &quot;bombie,&quot; like a bomblet, exploded?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes, because at that time in my village or in those areas, we have a lot of the bombing, and we don&#8217;t know the bomb under ground. And when we&#8217;re digging for bamboo shoots, and then the UXO explode to me, yeah. And it get—I lost my left hand. And that time, it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to continue my life. And—
AMY GOODMAN : How far up does your prosthetic go of your left hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : I think just over here.
AMY GOODMAN : It&#8217;s just your hand.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yeah, just my hand, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : How did the bomb explode and destroy your hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : When I dig in the bamboo shoots, and then, because I don&#8217;t know the bombie underground, and when I&#8217;m digging, and then the bombie explode to me. And then I pass near the bamboo shoots. And I have the farmer who&#8217;s working around this area that has come to help me, to carry me to my house. And that time, when I arrived at home, my parents, they are very, very upset. And then they just sent me to the hospital. So I spent a time in the hospital for treatment, 28 days. And—
AMY GOODMAN : And again, this is when you were eight years old.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes.
AMY GOODMAN : How old are you now?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Now I&#8217;m 26.
AMY GOODMAN : And what kind of use do you have of your hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : I want to say, now I use the prosthetic hand. And it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to help myself. And I just can help type a computer or something like that.
AMY GOODMAN : If you could talk, Channapha, about the significance of this tour that you&#8217;re beginning?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Sure. So this is really the first unprecedented journey by those who are directly impacted by cluster munitions from 40 years ago. So, Thoummy and Manixia really represent the new generation. So, two generations later, people are still being hurt and maimed by these bombies. And Manixia, of course, is, you know, a female deminer. And so, really, this is the first time that voices from Lao, that were unheard from during the bombings, are now speaking about their lives and what they&#8217;re living with, what their families are living with and what their communities are living with. And so, we&#8217;re incredibly excited not only to talk about, you know, the history, but really the ongoing problems and ways that we can address this so that future generations can live on their land safely.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about your own family background? And first, you say Lao or Laos?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : When I&#8217;m in country, I usually say Lao. When I&#8217;m around Lao people, they usually say Lao. But here in the U.S. context, it&#8217;s usually Laos, the country.
AMY GOODMAN : So, talk about your own family. You live now in Washington, D.C.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Yes. I was born in Vientiane and came here when I was quite young. I went through refugee camp. And so, you know, part of—in trying to, I think, sort of learn about the history of why our family came here, of course that history included this dark part of our past, both as Lao and an American. And so, that sort of sense of identity has really led me to further understand the history, but also the ongoing problems of what we can do to bring a safer world to the children and the people of Laos.
AMY GOODMAN : Manixia Thor, you lead an all-women bomb clearance team. We&#8217;re talking about 80 million unexploded U.S. bombs in Lao soil. What is a clearance team? And what does it mean to be all women? Channapha Khamvongsa is translating.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] So, every day, as an all-female demining team, we go out and we dig and try to find bomblets on land where people live and farm and work. So, she&#8217;s just emphasizing the importance of the job and the importance of clearance, because it&#8217;s people&#8217;s livelihoods and it&#8217;s people&#8217;s lives. If they don&#8217;t work the land, they don&#8217;t eat.
AMY GOODMAN : How did you choose to do this? This is an incredibly dangerous job.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] It&#8217;s very dangerous. I&#8217;m afraid. Other people are afraid. And so this work is necessary, because there are so many bomblets, and it&#8217;s so dangerous for the people in the country. And so it&#8217;s necessary work.
AMY GOODMAN : Describe how you find these bombs and how you clear them.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] There&#8217;s a metal detector. And if we come across one, we will carefully excavate it, see what kind of bomb it is, and if it&#8217;s large, then we will clear it and then detonate it. And so, for little bomblets, the one that you described, the 80 million that they come across, it will be brought, piled together, and then the villagers are cleared, and then they explode them.
AMY GOODMAN : Do you wear some kind of protection?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] No, actually.
AMY GOODMAN : On Friday, on the 40th anniversary of the ending of the U.S. bombings in Laos, a bomb left over from the nearly decade-long bombing campaign claimed the life of a two-year-old boy and injured five others as they prepared their lunch over a fire. Thoummy, how common is this?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : So now, we want to say, as I think—you know, as the war is ended and stopped many years ago, but now the UXO continue to kill and injure people, until now. And that is why we want to involve for the Legacies of War. I think Legacies of War is very, very important for the Lao people, especially for the UXO clearance and for victim assistance in Laos, because now we have more than hundred town the UXO explode in Laos. And now we also have many survivors that are waiting for support and help.
AMY GOODMAN : You have come to the United States. This is some fact and figures from The Guardian newspaper. So far, the U.S. has contributed an average of about $3 million a year to bomb removal efforts in Laos. In contrast, the U.S. spent more than $2 million a day—about $17 million in today&#8217;s dollars—for nine years dropping the bombs in the first place. Channapha, if you can talk about the significance of this, what the U.S. is doing now and what you want the United States to do?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Sure. So when we first started, and in—this issue was not even on the radar of most policy makers. And so, with support from congressional members and mobilizing the community around the country, we&#8217;ve been able to bump the number per year from $1.5 million when we first started to now $9 million. Obviously that&#8217;s been a significant increase. And the contribution—
AMY GOODMAN : Per year?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Per year. And the contribution from the U.S. has grown significantly. Obviously, it doesn&#8217;t match the scale of the problem. The fact is, less than 2 percent of what was dropped has actually been cleared. And so, every single province in Laos is still affected. And—
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, should it even be Laotians who are doing this? Or do you feel the U.S. should be doing this?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : No, I—
AMY GOODMAN : They dropped the bombs.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right. I think that we can—we need to do this together. Those on the ground, those that—people like Manixia and Thoummy live with this on a daily basis, and they can help themselves. What we need is international support, support from the U.S., and resources to continue this work, because it&#8217;s not going to go away anytime soon. And so, it&#8217;s important to build local capacity. But at the same time, more resources are needed.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re about a half-hour&#8217;s drive from Honeywell&#8217;s corporate headquarters. Honeywell is the maker of many of these bombs that are left in the soil of your country. Have you spoken with Honeywell or any of the other bomb makers?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : We haven&#8217;t—we haven&#8217;t reached—we haven&#8217;t gone through that route. We know that there are many people from that era and that generation that were involved with either the bombings, the production of—and who never would have thought that, 40 years later, what they were involved in, whether it was the bombing, whether it was the production of these bombs, that it would still be killing and maiming people. And so, actually, many of those individuals have joined our effort to make sure that the next generations aren&#8217;t impacted by what was done 40 years ago.
AMY GOODMAN : Manixia, what were you taught, growing up, about where these bombs came from?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] She heard from her father during the wartime that planes dropped bombs on her—yeah, he actually never identified the country; he just said the bombies came from planes from above.
AMY GOODMAN : And so, what is your message here? Why have you come to the United States?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] This is very important. And, yeah, this is an opportunity to tell the American people about what is going on in my country and the problem of UXO . The war might have ended 40 years ago, but for the people of Laos, it really hasn&#8217;t. And it&#8217;s still very alive for many of us in Lao today. So the hope is that as people hear and understand the problems, that there will be more support, there will be more awareness, and that we will get additional support to do our work.
AMY GOODMAN : Have you ever worked with a U.S. bomb clearance team?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] No, because I would do work in Laos, so I haven&#8217;t done any work in the U.S.
AMY GOODMAN : But they haven&#8217;t come to you to help you clear American bombs from your soil?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] There are a lot of international workers.
AMY GOODMAN : Where are they from, generally?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] From Lebanon, mainly.
AMY GOODMAN : Channapha, how many people are like Thoummy, have been victims of the exploding bombies or bomblets or bombs, land mines in the ground now?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Yeah, so, since the end of the bombings, as the last bombs were dropped, about 20,000 people have been killed or maimed. And as you alluded to earlier, just on Friday, you know, six people were injured. Two—there was one death, the two-year-old. But the other deaths—
AMY GOODMAN : And what happened?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : They were cooking around a fireplace. You know, we would go and microwave our food or turn on the stove. In Lao, they cook around a fire. And a little boy found a bombie, brought it into the circle, and it exploded. Of those that were killed or injured, the boy was two years old. The other three were another two-year-old, a three-year-old and a five-year-old. Forty percent of those that are killed or injured are children.
AMY GOODMAN : Is there education across Laos, in addition to the bomb clearance teams and efforts, for people not to pick up these bombs? Or how do you avoid inadvertently setting them off?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right, no. The education happens, but they&#8217;re so profuse. They&#8217;re everywhere. And as you know, children are curious. And these little bomblets look like tennis-size ball toys. And so, they&#8217;re very curious. And I would imagine that this two-year-old thought he was picking up something that he could play with.
AMY GOODMAN : How many people live in Laos today?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : About 6.5 million.
AMY GOODMAN : 6.5 million. And there are 80 million bomblets, bombs, bombies still in the land in Laos?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right. Yes.
AMY GOODMAN : That is something—that&#8217;s more than 10 per person.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : The amount of bombs that were dropped equated to about a thousand pounds per person.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, I want to thank you all for being with us, Thoummy Silamphan, for joining us from Laos, coming to the United States; Manixia Thor, who leads the all-women bomb clearance team; and Channapha Khamvongsa, who is head of Legacies of War here in the United States. nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!News40 Years After Secret U.S. War in Laos Ended, Millions of Unexploded Bomblets Keep Killing Laotians Forty years ago, on March 29, 1973, the &quot;secret&quot; U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end. By that point, the United States had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That is the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years &mdash; more than on Germany and Japan during World War II. The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs. Experts estimate Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies&quot; &mdash; or baseball-size bombs found inside cluster bombs. Since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. To mark International Day of Mine Awareness, we speak to a Laotian bomb survivor and a leader of an all-women bomb clearance team in Laos. Thoummy Silamphan and Manixia Thor are speaking at the United Nations today and are currently in the United States on a tour organized by Legacies of War .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman.
It was 40 years ago that the &quot;secret&quot; U.S. bombing that devastated Laos came to an end, March 29, 1973. By that point, the U.S. had dropped at least two million tons of bombs on Laos. That&#8217;s the equivalent of one planeload every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years—more than was dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.
The deadly legacy of the Vietnam War lives on today in the form of unexploded cluster bombs, which had about a 30 percent failure rate when they were dropped from American planes over large swaths of Laos. Experts estimate that Laos is littered with as many as 80 million &quot;bombies,&quot; or bomblets—baseball-sized bombs found inside cluster bombs.
Well, since the bombing stopped four decades ago, as many as 20,000 people have been injured or killed as a result. This is the focus of our guests, who have come from Laos to raise awareness about this ongoing problem. Our guests are Thoummy Silamphan, a bomb accident survivor and victim assistance advocate—he was eight years old when a bomb exploded as he was digging in the earth. Manixia Thor is with us. She leads an all-women bomb clearance team in Lao. And Channapha Khamvongsa is the founder and executive director of Legacies of War.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Thoummy, I&#8217;d like to begin with you. Talk about what happened to you.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : So, when I was eight years old—
AMY GOODMAN : Eight years old.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yeah, and when I was eight years old, at that time I studied in primary school. So, one day, I needed to find some bamboo shoots for to feed my family, to make soup. So—and when I saw the bamboo shoots, and I tried to dig into bamboo shoots. After that, the bombie explode to me.
AMY GOODMAN : What you call a &quot;bombie,&quot; like a bomblet, exploded?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes, because at that time in my village or in those areas, we have a lot of the bombing, and we don&#8217;t know the bomb under ground. And when we&#8217;re digging for bamboo shoots, and then the UXO explode to me, yeah. And it get—I lost my left hand. And that time, it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to continue my life. And—
AMY GOODMAN : How far up does your prosthetic go of your left hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : I think just over here.
AMY GOODMAN : It&#8217;s just your hand.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yeah, just my hand, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : How did the bomb explode and destroy your hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : When I dig in the bamboo shoots, and then, because I don&#8217;t know the bombie underground, and when I&#8217;m digging, and then the bombie explode to me. And then I pass near the bamboo shoots. And I have the farmer who&#8217;s working around this area that has come to help me, to carry me to my house. And that time, when I arrived at home, my parents, they are very, very upset. And then they just sent me to the hospital. So I spent a time in the hospital for treatment, 28 days. And—
AMY GOODMAN : And again, this is when you were eight years old.
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Yes.
AMY GOODMAN : How old are you now?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : Now I&#8217;m 26.
AMY GOODMAN : And what kind of use do you have of your hand?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : I want to say, now I use the prosthetic hand. And it&#8217;s very, very difficult for me to help myself. And I just can help type a computer or something like that.
AMY GOODMAN : If you could talk, Channapha, about the significance of this tour that you&#8217;re beginning?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Sure. So this is really the first unprecedented journey by those who are directly impacted by cluster munitions from 40 years ago. So, Thoummy and Manixia really represent the new generation. So, two generations later, people are still being hurt and maimed by these bombies. And Manixia, of course, is, you know, a female deminer. And so, really, this is the first time that voices from Lao, that were unheard from during the bombings, are now speaking about their lives and what they&#8217;re living with, what their families are living with and what their communities are living with. And so, we&#8217;re incredibly excited not only to talk about, you know, the history, but really the ongoing problems and ways that we can address this so that future generations can live on their land safely.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about your own family background? And first, you say Lao or Laos?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : When I&#8217;m in country, I usually say Lao. When I&#8217;m around Lao people, they usually say Lao. But here in the U.S. context, it&#8217;s usually Laos, the country.
AMY GOODMAN : So, talk about your own family. You live now in Washington, D.C.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Yes. I was born in Vientiane and came here when I was quite young. I went through refugee camp. And so, you know, part of—in trying to, I think, sort of learn about the history of why our family came here, of course that history included this dark part of our past, both as Lao and an American. And so, that sort of sense of identity has really led me to further understand the history, but also the ongoing problems of what we can do to bring a safer world to the children and the people of Laos.
AMY GOODMAN : Manixia Thor, you lead an all-women bomb clearance team. We&#8217;re talking about 80 million unexploded U.S. bombs in Lao soil. What is a clearance team? And what does it mean to be all women? Channapha Khamvongsa is translating.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] So, every day, as an all-female demining team, we go out and we dig and try to find bomblets on land where people live and farm and work. So, she&#8217;s just emphasizing the importance of the job and the importance of clearance, because it&#8217;s people&#8217;s livelihoods and it&#8217;s people&#8217;s lives. If they don&#8217;t work the land, they don&#8217;t eat.
AMY GOODMAN : How did you choose to do this? This is an incredibly dangerous job.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] It&#8217;s very dangerous. I&#8217;m afraid. Other people are afraid. And so this work is necessary, because there are so many bomblets, and it&#8217;s so dangerous for the people in the country. And so it&#8217;s necessary work.
AMY GOODMAN : Describe how you find these bombs and how you clear them.
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] There&#8217;s a metal detector. And if we come across one, we will carefully excavate it, see what kind of bomb it is, and if it&#8217;s large, then we will clear it and then detonate it. And so, for little bomblets, the one that you described, the 80 million that they come across, it will be brought, piled together, and then the villagers are cleared, and then they explode them.
AMY GOODMAN : Do you wear some kind of protection?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] No, actually.
AMY GOODMAN : On Friday, on the 40th anniversary of the ending of the U.S. bombings in Laos, a bomb left over from the nearly decade-long bombing campaign claimed the life of a two-year-old boy and injured five others as they prepared their lunch over a fire. Thoummy, how common is this?
THOUMMY SILAMPHAN : So now, we want to say, as I think—you know, as the war is ended and stopped many years ago, but now the UXO continue to kill and injure people, until now. And that is why we want to involve for the Legacies of War. I think Legacies of War is very, very important for the Lao people, especially for the UXO clearance and for victim assistance in Laos, because now we have more than hundred town the UXO explode in Laos. And now we also have many survivors that are waiting for support and help.
AMY GOODMAN : You have come to the United States. This is some fact and figures from The Guardian newspaper. So far, the U.S. has contributed an average of about $3 million a year to bomb removal efforts in Laos. In contrast, the U.S. spent more than $2 million a day—about $17 million in today&#8217;s dollars—for nine years dropping the bombs in the first place. Channapha, if you can talk about the significance of this, what the U.S. is doing now and what you want the United States to do?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Sure. So when we first started, and in—this issue was not even on the radar of most policy makers. And so, with support from congressional members and mobilizing the community around the country, we&#8217;ve been able to bump the number per year from $1.5 million when we first started to now $9 million. Obviously that&#8217;s been a significant increase. And the contribution—
AMY GOODMAN : Per year?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Per year. And the contribution from the U.S. has grown significantly. Obviously, it doesn&#8217;t match the scale of the problem. The fact is, less than 2 percent of what was dropped has actually been cleared. And so, every single province in Laos is still affected. And—
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, should it even be Laotians who are doing this? Or do you feel the U.S. should be doing this?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : No, I—
AMY GOODMAN : They dropped the bombs.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right. I think that we can—we need to do this together. Those on the ground, those that—people like Manixia and Thoummy live with this on a daily basis, and they can help themselves. What we need is international support, support from the U.S., and resources to continue this work, because it&#8217;s not going to go away anytime soon. And so, it&#8217;s important to build local capacity. But at the same time, more resources are needed.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re about a half-hour&#8217;s drive from Honeywell&#8217;s corporate headquarters. Honeywell is the maker of many of these bombs that are left in the soil of your country. Have you spoken with Honeywell or any of the other bomb makers?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : We haven&#8217;t—we haven&#8217;t reached—we haven&#8217;t gone through that route. We know that there are many people from that era and that generation that were involved with either the bombings, the production of—and who never would have thought that, 40 years later, what they were involved in, whether it was the bombing, whether it was the production of these bombs, that it would still be killing and maiming people. And so, actually, many of those individuals have joined our effort to make sure that the next generations aren&#8217;t impacted by what was done 40 years ago.
AMY GOODMAN : Manixia, what were you taught, growing up, about where these bombs came from?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] She heard from her father during the wartime that planes dropped bombs on her—yeah, he actually never identified the country; he just said the bombies came from planes from above.
AMY GOODMAN : And so, what is your message here? Why have you come to the United States?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] This is very important. And, yeah, this is an opportunity to tell the American people about what is going on in my country and the problem of UXO . The war might have ended 40 years ago, but for the people of Laos, it really hasn&#8217;t. And it&#8217;s still very alive for many of us in Lao today. So the hope is that as people hear and understand the problems, that there will be more support, there will be more awareness, and that we will get additional support to do our work.
AMY GOODMAN : Have you ever worked with a U.S. bomb clearance team?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] No, because I would do work in Laos, so I haven&#8217;t done any work in the U.S.
AMY GOODMAN : But they haven&#8217;t come to you to help you clear American bombs from your soil?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] There are a lot of international workers.
AMY GOODMAN : Where are they from, generally?
MANIXIA THOR : [translated] From Lebanon, mainly.
AMY GOODMAN : Channapha, how many people are like Thoummy, have been victims of the exploding bombies or bomblets or bombs, land mines in the ground now?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Yeah, so, since the end of the bombings, as the last bombs were dropped, about 20,000 people have been killed or maimed. And as you alluded to earlier, just on Friday, you know, six people were injured. Two—there was one death, the two-year-old. But the other deaths—
AMY GOODMAN : And what happened?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : They were cooking around a fireplace. You know, we would go and microwave our food or turn on the stove. In Lao, they cook around a fire. And a little boy found a bombie, brought it into the circle, and it exploded. Of those that were killed or injured, the boy was two years old. The other three were another two-year-old, a three-year-old and a five-year-old. Forty percent of those that are killed or injured are children.
AMY GOODMAN : Is there education across Laos, in addition to the bomb clearance teams and efforts, for people not to pick up these bombs? Or how do you avoid inadvertently setting them off?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right, no. The education happens, but they&#8217;re so profuse. They&#8217;re everywhere. And as you know, children are curious. And these little bomblets look like tennis-size ball toys. And so, they&#8217;re very curious. And I would imagine that this two-year-old thought he was picking up something that he could play with.
AMY GOODMAN : How many people live in Laos today?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : About 6.5 million.
AMY GOODMAN : 6.5 million. And there are 80 million bomblets, bombs, bombies still in the land in Laos?
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : Right. Yes.
AMY GOODMAN : That is something—that&#8217;s more than 10 per person.
CHANNAPHA KHAMVONGSA : The amount of bombs that were dropped equated to about a thousand pounds per person.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, I want to thank you all for being with us, Thoummy Silamphan, for joining us from Laos, coming to the United States; Manixia Thor, who leads the all-women bomb clearance team; and Channapha Khamvongsa, who is head of Legacies of War here in the United States. nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!NewsPresident Bush Appoints Henry Kissinger to Head 'Independent' Commission to Investigate 9-11: Kissinger Was Involved in the Bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (Deaths: More Than 2 Million); the Ovehttp://www.democracynow.org/2002/11/28/president_bush_appoints_henry_kissinger_to
tag:democracynow.org,2002-11-28:en/story/f51827Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:00:00 -0500As U.S. Drops Anti-Personnel Cluster Bombs On Afghanistan, a Look at the Bombs' Impact On Civilians From Laos to Cambodiahttp://www.democracynow.org/2001/10/26/as_u_s_drops_anti_personnel
tag:democracynow.org,2001-10-26:en/story/f97e08Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:00:00 -0400<I>Spite House</I> Documents Secret Vietnam War</B>http://www.democracynow.org/1998/8/5/i_spite_house_i_documents_secret
tag:democracynow.org,1998-08-05:en/story/7c3387Wed, 05 Aug 1998 00:00:00 -0400U.S. Chemical Weapons Tests in Panamahttp://www.democracynow.org/1998/7/31/u_s_chemical_weapons_tests_in
tag:democracynow.org,1998-07-31:en/story/2bfba6Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 -0400CNN/Time Vs. Reportershttp://www.democracynow.org/1998/7/10/cnn_time_vs_reporters
tag:democracynow.org,1998-07-10:en/story/a8a2b3Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:00:00 -0400